The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1889-11-01
THE COURT DECIDES.

In the matter Of the HOmestake tun-
mel precinct. Judge DeWolfe was CON-
PEELED Ia write his decision in a hurry.
It could not have presented the situa-
ton i'm more lucid form IL a week had
been spent i'm its preparation. OF
course. the lawyers who represent a
conspiracy to steal the state were ready
90 throw new obstacles i'm the way Of
b court, but this policy of obstruction
had been anticipated and surprises none
OF us. In this county. crime, wrapping
itself In h convenient robe Of techni-
saltty, II sometimes allowed to get a
pretty long start Of its pursuers and, in
h pending case. while the people crave
an orderly count, to the end that state
hood may he realized, the only course is
20 wait I'm patience until fraud has ex.
hansted its last frivolous pretext.
The decision rendered yesterday
morning by Judge DeWOlfe is q COM
pact summary Of the disputed case
which every intelligent layman can un.
derstand IN he reads It. The court
nrst studies h question whether the
functions of the canvassing board are
ministerial only or partly ministerial
or partly judicial. In deciding that
point Judge DewOlfe was able to com
mand abundant precedent i'm the way
OF unquestiOned authority, and i'm fix
tng the functions of the board as pure-
~ ministerial he placed every element
OF the controversy in clearest light.
Judge Knowles has been a persistent
advocate of the returning board that
has sought to throw the tunnel precinct
out. The very atmosphere about him
must have been redolent with the re-
lection Of his bushes, when, yesterday
ornih the court quoted the
decision once rendered by Judge
himself, fully sustaining
every sentences in the opinion handed
dow by Judge IleWolfe.
Having ascertained the true function
OF h ~canvassing board, Judge DE
wolfe properly concludes that the duty
OF the board In simply to make alb
etracts Of the votes rs shown by the re-
turns and that the board has no power
20 pas on the alleged informalities
rectted by the defendants. These NAV
% important questions and the law
provides a tribunal where they may be
raised and decided, but they are not for
the determination of "A canvassing
board" so the decision reads. There
upon. Judge DE Wolfe scatters the
fragments left from the case made in
eha OF the canvassers by saying:
The answer I'm one place states that IA votes
we're casi nj precinct "a. I an at "A loss to know
10Y TINS fSst could appear except by the returns
when . majority of the canvassing board re-
lecteo. hit appears by the returns IL follows
trom necessity that the returns were sufficient to
enable the canSassing board to ascertain the
vote cast, and for whom east, and this WAS slftc.
lent To enable them to make the abst ract of the
votes required al their hands. This admission of
the answer also negatives the allegation that IL
could not be "easily'' determined, from
t1e refurns, the number of votes east, and for
whom cast. whether 'easily' ascertained or
not. ff seems TO have been ascertained for the
purpose at a pleading, and rs a defense against
what the law enJoins as u public duty: and. II
usehnl for such . purpose. why could not the
knowledge thus acquired be as well applied I'm
making abstracts of the votes east at the pre-
e1Dct In questionU No reason has been stated.
a. can be Imagined, why. IL the vote could he as
ssstained from the returns. IL should not DE
counted by the canvassing board.
With the tex of this decision in his
hands, Wilbur r. Sanders would wisely
seek the privacy of his chamber and
mediate. In the presence of its terse
phrases, Judge Knowles may note how