The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1890-02-12
THEY TALKED ALL DAY
Argument In the District Court In the
Sheriff Case.
Judge kirkpatrick Gets Away With
the Other Side at the End of the
First Day OF DiscusstOp-A
Hearing viii be Long.

Ey the Stlnulrus = SINSEti wire
BUTTE, Feb, 1i.'On the i'm
the district court room this morning were
the letters which formed the >cn-
tence:
for trial"
The long desired point where further
-postponement was almost impossible had
come and the trial of the celebrated case
was actually down for "a beginning. Quite
an audience gathered i'm the court room this
morning. and the arguments which lasted
all day were listened To atte,tively. The
question whether or not lUO votes AT pre-
cinct "a were illegal because east by men
who had simply declared their intention
of becoming citizens of the United States.
Following out the argument OF Mr.. Camp
bell, il is claimed that 5000 foreign born
voters i'm Silver Bow county. who have
only declared their intention. would he
di,,f ranchised. Ii is said that there
i'm the county who have full papers. and
only IA men have taken out full papers
since the election. The length of time
occupied i'm settling this one point of the
controversy Indicates thai the trial will be
"a long one and no mortal can tell where
Judge Kirkpatrick began the battle this
morning by moving tn strike ont section <
of the replication tn the answer to the
vs.. Sullivan. Ii was contendc,L, first, that
the matter alleged in the replication was
not in the original allegation. Second,
thai IL Is improper because. new matters:
and third that it is immatcrial. Directing
his argument to that part of the replica
ton which states that 100 men ut precinct
"a voted Illegally because they had not
! AK the L " saia: . ~ a nf,sr ysar
more, and down to the very end of the
territorial existence. men voted in Mon
tana after simply "a declaration of inten-
ton. Delegates were elected and took
their seats on the votes of men who had
declared their intention, but had not
taken the oath. IL * estimated that from
10 tn 40 per cent of the votes cast i'm the
territory were of this class-of men who
taken the oath. Those who drew up the
statute looked to the territorial statute,
and found nothing in the territorial stat
stituti1n i'm order To vote. The law of con
gress i'm that particular was entirely ig-
nor.d during thirty years ct 'erri,oriai Sx.
10 To 40 per cent of the voters of Montana.
/ and il * impossible tn tell who of the long
list of state officials from gov,
by legal voters. Not only would the
election he questioned of the men whose
election depends ON Precinct "a, but the
seats of every member of the Legislature
would bc i'm doubt. In the light of this
what is the law: Here Is "a positive law
requiring IA certain thing to he done and
it is not done. Hence, you might say the
that. But knew all the time
what the territory was doing. Ii accepted
basis Of election: Il sent out governor
who approved the delegates elected to the
Legislature. ignoring all the tim: this law
acquiesced i'm the legislation. never
hunted its dissent at any tInlc. but has cN-
pressly approved IT. refer 10 the enab,
ling act, section &, page ~. stating that all
persons to the legislature are here.
by authorized to vote for and
an approval. Congress know what the
practice of the territory had been. On
page 13 il is stated that all who are quail.
1 n.-l xl.,tor- IF this tHrt.itntv shall N-ptn for
the adoption ar rejection of this constitu.
ton. VIII it he said this was not the Gus
ton and the election of officers was sub
mitted To all who had failed To take this
oath. Furthermore, the government, pro-
claimed the admission of the state. Does
the fact that 40 per cent. of Montana
voters have failed to conform with this
requirement to take the saith in%validats
a proceeding would be unhcarsi of
even qualified by the laws of I'll.
without this express ratification by con
gress of the territorial rule OF suffrage
Congress by silent acauiescence can vail
this ease il is far more than acGuiesccnt
m ne,s @ ai,SSa Wossa T illegal " al pree ina. g 3
simply because they had not taken thu
oath, is immatcrial and Irrelevant ant
the allegations contained in section .
that certain voters of preciuct Vi are dis
Vlali1led. j Will pass at present M ths
matter of argument. merely moving &
strike ont the paragraph"
Thompson i'm answer. said:
ut il argued that this matter to he. strick
en- out is irrelevant and iInmaterial. IL tn
facts alleged are true. The replication |
not new material, but IL "a reply to new
matter int q luced in thc answero of the de
endant. l admire the logical arg,Inien
of Mr.. Kirkpatrick, and the conclusion
:. reached from the premises. But tn
premises are false. because he assumes
position that is untenable. ASSUMING
; that 30 years have passed during whic
the territorial laws of Montana has no
complied with the laws of tl. Unite
States, my friend would argue that there
fore this law should he the la'
of the land. contrary to the law &
: the United States. The proposition of IN
J gentleman il hat congress must loo
! to the territorial laws before II makes an
: laws for a new state. The supreme coui
= in every case says the United States Ia
!. absolute authority over the territory. NJ
l friend merely shows by his argument tina
2 a law on the statutes for ~ years shout
Inc somewhat respected. We have mad
officers by voters who are not ,ualifie
electors. and because We have done thi
30 years SO we are told that "a law of th
: United States should bc swept aside an
the territorial law he supreme"
Mr.. Campbell here quoted q number {
4 authorities in decisions of-tlRs Unite
. States OH the question of the constit
tional rights of the government over tei