Fergus County argus., 1890-11-27
COUNTY ATTORNEY SMITHS REPLY.
and Shows the Editors to be Willful
Falsihers.

Enron ARGUS: With reference to recent
statements published in the Democrat, I
shall again ask little space in ysur col
umns. | shall not, however. take up your
| space with the letter which wrote Hon. c.
II. Benton in the Bennett ease but will
rather give you his letter to me Of recent
date, which explains the whole matter and
is in effect a decision Of the court that my
position was correct, and will probably
have more weight in an intelligent com
munity than the aiiidavits Of criminals in
Jail or irresponsible scavengers without.
GREAT FALLS Mont. Nov. 15. 1880.
FRANK +. SMITH. County Attorney. Lewis
town. Mont.-I enclose your letter in re-
gard to the Baker Bennett matter. The
action took in regard to the release Of
| Bennett upon bonds shows my view Of the
law and was the position taken by you.
and was decision that you did not exceed
| your duty in seeing that he had an oppor-
tunity to give BAIL and the latter part Of
| your letter to me shows you left the ma tier
| in my hands.
In answer to your letter of recent date
inquiring whether or not you have ever ex-
pressed the wish to me that no November
term he held in your county, say you have
never expressed such desire or requested it.
and no person other than myself is respon-
sible that it Is not held. thought at the
time ! made the order that the interests
| and business Of the county at large would
| not suffer. but expense would he saved by
| not holding the term, and still think 50.
Truly yours,
{. II. BENTON.
With regard to my statement that there
| is no criminal libel law in this state, l
| should have used the qualification ''ade-
| quate." 1t is unfortunately the case that
to bring himself within the provisions of
the statute the writer of an article must be
so specific as to lend color of probability
| to the statement. II the writer is cow
ard, liar and sneak. as in the case Of the
| Democrat, he will make broad statements
which probably no one will believe. II he
is sincere he will publish the time. creum-
| stances, etc, of the commission OF the crime
he alleges, and il he is wrong the injured
party can get redress.
| Now, if the writer of that article knows,
as he insinuates, that a crime has been
committed, it is his duty tn make com
plant thereof to some magistrate. tSec.
as, y. AIS, Comp. StatD His failure I" do
50 shows him to be "a blackguard and IA
liar.
| To establish that .'the records of the
courts show that have received hundreds
| Of dollars as fees in criminal cases in which
! made no appearance, contrary to law
letters sent to justices OF the peace by me
in February. 1889, are published, followed
by this statement. This of itself is GER
tainly sufficient proof of his guilt To
any one but an mbecile this would lie
simply proof that ! demanded certain fees.
and don I show that ! ever received one
cent.
| The s.NapolsOn Of the slums" quotes Sec.
., page 100, Laws of $50, which act was
passed March II and took effect April l.
1889, and tries to make it appear that
was collecting my salary Hereunder months
before the law itself existed. The law as
quoted by him was passed as stated above,
and prior to its taking effect all county at
torneys in the state collected their pay I'M
der sections SIG and si7. page $50, Comp
Stat, which differs from the present law in
that it did not require the attorney to he
| present in all cases in order tn draw his
fees. while the present law does. This point
was tested by Hon. William Wallace, Jr..
now u Democratic member Of the legsla-
ture. Will. he was county attorney ef Lewis
and Clarke county in the spring of 1887,
and was decided in favor Of the county at
torneys, and have never before, even by
Implication, heard MIR. Wallace called a
criminal. There has never been doubt
among lawyers as to the correctness Of that
construction of the law. While at q later
period sent out notices to justices to tar
those fees, the notice was disregarsled and
did not press the matter. and the county is
/, now richer by hundreds Of dollars than it
would have been had insisted upon my
rights.
Concerning the assertion that told JUS
tice Gudgell that it was unnecessary to note
on the record whether ! was present or not,
the truth is as follows: At the end Of the
: first quarter after Justice Guslsell assumed
office. went to his docket to look over the
cases tried and observed that he had not
taxed up my fees in several cases | had
tried before him. He said it was an over
sight, and that he would correct it at that
time. | dvised him not to do so. Alter
I, having completed and signed the record ol
zach case, it would he an Illegal act Ia
!, change it.
The assertion that have in this manner
q collected fees in cases where was not pres
ent is AN unqualified lie, and challenge tht
. proof.
. In the article in the Democrat occurs the
a following I'VE can but present the iacts u
i the premi.es and allow the public to juds'
I which are the liars" That is what ! de
4 mauJ, that the facts be presented, witt
4 such incidents Of time and place AS VII
J. allow the public to Judge which are th'
hars."
. | Of sipat n