The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1892-12-05
THE LAW OF 1T.

The case of the Silver Bow county board
was not before the supreme court. 1t was
in Judge De Woife's court. He m~andamused
the board and the case was never appealed.
The opinion handed down a fortnight ago
is, therefore, the only statement of the
law that has come from the supreme bench
OF Montana in recent ears.-Anaconda
STANDARD.
The Standard has a short and treach-
erous memory. The Precinct "a case
was squarely before the supreme court
and was passed upon. 1t was in the
~shrievality contest of Lloyd VS.. Sulli-
van. Sullivan held the certificate of
election from the clerk of Silver Bow
county. Lloyd contested, and Judge
Mediation, of the district court, decided
that Sullivan was entitled to the office.
Lloyd appealed to the supreme court.
On May 81, 1890, Chief Justice Blake
handed down the opinion of that tri-
bunal, reversing Judge McHatton's de-
cision and awarding the seat to Lloyd.
The supreme court reviewed all the
evidence, took up and discussed the
question of fraud at Precinct "a, and
decided that the Silver Bow canvassing
board had the right to throw out the
vote Of the precinct. Judge Blake said:
We will review the testimony proving
that actual fraud was perpetrated at Pre-
cinct "a. 1t should be observed that most
of the persons whose names are registered
upon the poll book OF the precinct were en-
ployed at the time of the election in build
ing a railroad near that point. and van
lshed when the work was finished, and only
ten men were found to testify. The a!-
pellant offered in evidence two subposnaes
with their returns duly verified. The OBJ
lection of respondent to their introduction
was sustained upon the grounds that they
were irrelevant and immaterial. Cireum-
stances afford a satisfactory explana-
ton of the failure of the contes-
tant to bring into court all the
voters of the precinct. Charles johnson
testified that he WAS E. registered voter at
Precinct "a, and that he did not vote. His
name is on the poll book as one who voted
and is numbered 81. The testimony of res
idents of Precinct 81 is given, who claimed
to have voted the republican ticket, which
the returns do not show. x y = The
returns of Precinct ,34 are fraudulent
and do not state truly the vote which each
received at the last election. The
statutory requirements we're violated with
%impunity by the officers of Precinct "a,
= 4 n n The election was conducted in
violation OF laws regulating the same and
the opportunity was offered for the yerpe-
t alton Of crime against the SURFACES of the
PEG lie. Ballots wee illegally marked after
they had been delivered to the judges to be
put IN the box. Fraud was committed by
the otiicars of the election to such an ex.
tent that the actual vote of the precinct
cannot be asoertained and the returns are
as evidence and must be rejected,
n much more of the same sort,
The STANDARD and Thomas II. Carter
will lind the entire opinion mighty in
teresting reading. That opinion is the
OF the law by the present
supreme court. 1t goes behind the re-
turns and discusses the vote of the pre-
cinct; it says the vote was fraudulent.
that the law was violated by the cleo
ton judges, and that the vote of the
precinct should not have been counted.
Will our esteemed contemporary tell
US wherein this case differs on the face
OF it from the affair at Box Elder, where
q Judge of election gave brides and
ballots to half breed Indians as
by a score of atiidavits.
Will 1t deny that the decision OF the
highest tribunal in the state was not Il
fair precedent for a republican canvass
ing board in Choteau? We are not now
Discussing the right and wrong of it,
the law of it.