The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1890-02-05
GOV. rooLE.s POSITION.
Now a~ val Act I'm View oT the supreme
Courts Dect~ioa.

frnsn In. Helena Inslcrendent.
1870, en-. r~s.,, a~c;s;a" ~ ,ns s,,ur,.n,.
49, -,
coor, anu DOW w|e'u M"sN. InI '' w
ou bills that might Ia iaiu bsfore MIN TOT
consideration. He said: ~ have care
fully read the decision of the supreme
court I'm the case; ! was called
;r,.-,-,, ~, la~, ,,r,x,;l;uv For the iss,,-
sP"s - .I,;,, a. ,,.,,.
Ance OF cerunca.es oi r":'io" .'es
hers of the legislature. u is wen KNOWN
that i entertained a diuerent view from
that announced ny the supreme court i'm
the Thomson case. That decision
has mo-, convinced m., that WAS
~r,,, Inn the ouinion handed down is
the ,isci.iou of TIM. s,pr,,n.. court of thi.
state. ftis the uecisio' oi "e "isnsSs
judicial tribunal i'm The state. composed nj
Judges whose election was so pronounced
as no, To he affected by the now famous
precinc, "a, and whatever I may think
personally, officially shall no, resist il.
given the right to pass upon the question.
TLcv have. decided thai a ccrtifcate cmn-
mating from the state canvassing hoard is
ceiv ing the same was elected, and il fol-
lows that such person is entitled to par
. saw i disnut.. that, hut ! have had o.
casion to take issue with the supreme
court before, and when l was dissatisfied
United States, hat i'm this instance there
are two insul,erablr objections to such "a
course. First. I am ncithcra party nor an
attorney i'm the Thompson case and have
mo control over the proceedings. Second.
il I was "A party or an attorney i'm the
case, ! Mould hn ."nir1 ~. M,tG ,ne FAC.
federal question and hence was not APP
rsalahlc. This is dilemma No. I.
IF a bill were presented for my APP
proval c~manating from the house in
which Thompson claims tn hc "a member
and was mIiohjectionablc i'm substance
and form and 1 should veto IL, my only
obis.ctiou (which under the constitution is
required tn bc stately would he that one
81 the bodies wnifn passsu ~ anu WHn,c me
was no, the legal house Of representa-
tives. If persons holding state certif-
bershin' then such persons wer.. entitled
TO organize the ho,iss, and IL "a majority of
those elected tn the house and holding
such certificates have organized that body
then in follows clearly, n the decision of
the supreme court bc law, that such body
is the legal house. This proposition Of
] should veto such n bill, the con-
stitutiun provides that when "a bill is
nor; IL he approves il he shall sign Il, hut
il Ia. do not approve il he shall return il
with his objections to the house in which
il originated" What would he the effect
OF returning il to the house i'm which il
oriOiuat,J3 Is that not m confession
that such is the house? Would il not be
that 81 return this to the house of repre-
sentatives which passed IL because il was
not passed by the house. OF representa-
tiyes -" But stlppose again, that sent
the bill back with this objection and the
hoiSe refused To rts.onsider. would not
the same supreme court uphold the law
because. III tine holse was not legal. its
nassap. over A veto would not make il le-
gal. Notwithstanding the constitution re-
s,uirx-s n hill to h, rss.onsiderssl when
vetoed:
.sSuppose. however, l do not approyc
the hill, and with my view Of the law rom
corning who are prima facic members /
cannot approve il, what will be the effect ?
The constitution SAYS il I do not approve,
il within five days lS,lndays exceptedD
the same shall he a law i'm like manner as
IL had signed il. This IL dilemma No, ..
4 have concluded not to sign such "a hill.
or i'm any way give my approval to the
validity of "a body whose quorum was
made possible by ~isreVardinU the re-
turns of an election which, has never bs,eu |
inn.achcd. and by dcfyinu the iudvmcnt
of "A court which mas never bss,u reversed.
4 mean the decision of Judge Dewolfe. |
By this cours.. amy citizen can test the h. |
vaIity of the act alleged To bc nassed. i'm
the courts, and take the Judgment of that
tribunal.
again, while nothing has trauspjr,d tn |
shake my conviction in the ~proposition
the persons holding certificates from
s.ounty clerks arr. prima racic members
and entitled To organize the house. can
not al ford to ignore th.. decision of m. |
supreme court of this state which has |
n.,,,, this vital srnint nu.l wI;cl, |