The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1890-02-25
SULLIVAN THE SHERIFF.
After Much Consideration Judge Nc
Hatton Hands Down a Decision
in the Silver Bow Case.
All the Points Made by the Attor-
ney for Lloyd Fully and Ex-
haustively Answered.
Nothing shown by tho Contestant which
Would Nitiaio the Vote In Precinct
3s--wnI be Appealed.

Burrr, Feb. 9i.-lspeciai. The an.
nouncement that Judge Mediation would
give his decision in the contested sheriff
case, involving tho celebrated precinct g.
drew large crowd 10 the district court this
morning and the utmost silence prevailed
while Judge Mediation read tho following
opinion: In the district court of the Second
judicial district Of the state Of Montana, in
and for the county of Silver Bow. John l..
Lloyd, contestant, vs.. Eugene u. Sullivan,
respondent. In this action the court con-
cedos tho right Of the claim by the contest
ant and respondent to the ofllco
oil sheriff of slwr Bow county,
Montana, 20 bo tho ouly matter
for its determination. That ia simply the
right of these parties as between themselves
10 said ollioe. II is not a matter Of pnr-
ticular interest TO the people of SAID county
which of these parties shnll exercise the
right of Office, but IL is II matter of moment
to them TINT the person who does perform
its duties shall hold the Office by an undis-
prnod title, and that all his official acts be
legal and binding. These parties call upon
Che court for a determination of their in
/ dividunl rights in the natter. Just M other
iitiganis call upon it 10 determine their
rights in other matters. II IL, therefore, 10
the matter of determining their individual
rights that the court directs itself
IN this action, and every other
consideration which il involved
in that inquiry is disregarded. and the
court has looked only TO the proceedings
and evidence in this action. As the rulings
Of the court herein on objections entered
during the progress of the trial have been
reduced 10 writing. and tho court has at tho
request of the parties made special findings
OF fact from the evidence, and based upon
thom and its conclusion of law, these arc
referred to and will supplement this opin-
ion now. Briefly stated, tho issue between
these parties is that the contestant claims
that while lac received the highest number
OF legal votes at the election
in Silver Bow county. Montana. on
the LIST day of October. 1859.
for the Office Of sheriff of ii county, nnd
vns lectcd thorttU, aud Is tati,le0 70 noid
the same. the clerk of said county wrong
fully issued the certificates Of election TO re-
spondent; and MS shown this contestant pre-
sonts that although respondent received the
greatest number Of votes cast for said Off
Ger at said election, lnrge number OF per-
sons who voted for respondent at precincts
/ 2G and u in said county were not qualified
electors and their votes were illegal and
fraudulent, and asks the court 90 determine
| that fact and deduct the votes of these per
sons from the whole number of votes cast
for respondent, which, il done. would leave
contestant the greateet number of legal
votes and give him the Office.
a fsul Mt IN IN f,s.ast al usut
and notice of contest, set OUT the particular
grounds OF these persons disqualihcations
and reasons why their votes should not be
counted for respondent or nt all. He stated
thnt the votes of lS5 persons who voted al
precinct No. ~ for respondent were illegal
and fraudulent for the renson that such
| persons were aliens, Who had declared their
intention before deputy clerk OF the dis
! trict court outside of his Office, and whose
false and fraudulent ccrtilcates of declara-
tiOn of such persons, not being copies of
amy record. That such persons caused
themselves 10 be registered upon presenta-
ton of snid certificates 20 the registry
agent, and afterwards voted at said election
for respondent. He declared that sixty
five persons who voted for respondent AZ
precinct No. ~ voted illegally, for tho rea-
son that such persons had not resided in
the territory of Montana for six months,
and IN Silver Bow county for thirty days
immediately preceding the day of said
election, The court, against the objection
of respondent and In the exercise of liber-
ality, allowed contestant 10 amend this
statement 10y including in and adding TO il
the allegations of the same rounds of dis
qualification Of these persons and thirty
live others as made against the persons who
voted at precinct No. ~.
The present proceeding comes within n
special statute requiring the contestant TO
specify III his statement the grounds Of his
contest with particularly. Contestant
should bring his case within the special
provisions of the statute and respondent
should lie permitted 10 rest upon contest
ants particular grounds as SGT ont. Tho
court has, however, given grounds 20 the
partiestieiein, 70 the end TINT right may be
determined from the presentation of the
! whole matter Counsel for contestants
seem 10 think that the court was perhaps
misled IN making lis ruling that the oath
provided 10y the laws Of the United States
relating tO suffrage IN the territories 90 be
taken 10y an ali,n, in addition 10 his declnr.
alton, TO make him u qualified eector. did
not apply at the election held the lst day of
October, 1893; the court reicrates the opin-
ion that congress having delegated TO tho
constiiutsyle!l convention OF Montana the
prescribed the qualifications of voters
thereat, that when such convention provid-
ed by ordinance for said election and THAT
/ the persons who are then qualified electors,
under the laws of this territory, shall be
| qualified 90 vote nj said election il re-
fcrred To the qualifications prescribed by
the territorial legislature and not To those
prescribed by any laws Of the United
States relating 10 the territories.
To proceed In the case Hs presented: IL
/ appears from the evidence introduced by
the contestant that lac received at said cleo
tion 1889 votes and respondent received
3,62S votes, for said Office, according to the
returns mndo by the election officers from
| the vnrious voting precincts IN said county.
Contestant put in evidence an abstract
made 10y the canyassing board of Silver
/ Bow county, showing that he received $3.50
and respondent 8363 votes, according 10 the
abstract which does not contain an abstract
OF the votes cast al precinct No. ~, by these
parties; but he has also introduced in evil
dence the returns from precinct No. 81 TO
show. and which does, thut contestant re-
ceiyed nine votes and respondent Ito votes
/ thereat; and may sny right here, that this
abstract, in connection with the returns
/ from snid precinct, clearly shows the refusal
or faiiu = of the canyassing board 10 make
complete abstract of 1.-THE votes casl at
said election; and that they failed, refused
or neglected te perform a plain ministerial
duty imposed upon them by law. Much
complaint il made by contestant that the
county clerk issued the certificate of cleo
| tion TO respondent, ID appears however,
from the evidence introduced by himself.
that snid certificate is supported by the
highest number OF votes cast for said Office
at said election, shown by the election re-
turns. This Is precisely what the Law con-