The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1893-04-12
Arguments In the Contested Cascade
Judgeship Made Before the SUI
preme Court
Il Involves the Certilcation Of
Nominations Under the Aus
tralian Law.
Corporal Neisland Indicted for Using the
Malls to Dofraud-Lnwysr Suing
for His Fec. Etc.

in the case of william II. Pigott versus
Charles II. Benton. 1t is on appeal of
PiQost from tho district court OF Cascade
county. Benton ran a. the candidate OF
the republican and populists 70. judge OF
the Cascade county court. Pigott was his
democratic opponent. The vote given Ben
ton as a republican and that given him a. a
p~opu!ist. together exceeded the vote re-
ceived by PiQott az a democrat. 1t was
claimed, however. that the nomination OF
Benton by the populists was not In regular
form, and that the votes cast for ! i'm a. q
populist should not be counted. The Cns-
oade district court decided against Pigott
and he took an appeal to the supreme court
to settle a question which is considered of
considerable importance under the Aus
tralinn ballot law. Ransom Cooper and A.
J.. Shores, Of Greut Falls. represented
Figott yesterday, and p. H. Leslie and B..
r. Carpenter appeared for Benton.
Attorneys for Pigott CALLED attention to
the fact that ns a nominee of the democratic
party he received 1,34S votes; TINT Benton.
a. the nominee of the republican party. got
1888 votes. and as 1.-THE pretended nominee"
OF the peoples party 2S0; that counting the
votes cast for him IA a populist Benton had
a majority of 1l5 over Pigott: and that
without the p~opulist vote, he had 1G5 less
than Pigott. They claimed that the peo-
pies party convention made no nomination
for Judge, and the only reason for placing
Benton's name on the ballots as the noml-
neo of that party was the certificate OF tho
chairman and secretary of the executive
committee of the populists. 1t was claimed
that tho populist convention did not ap-
point any executive committee with power
to fill vacancies. The argument declares
that the first object of the Australian ballot
law ia the regulation of nominations. I'm
der the old law trickery and fraud had been
men werc deceived into voting for
candidates whose names appeared as
the nominees of parties TO which
tl.ey did not belong and which
had not chosen them. So the legislature.
when it passed the Australian ballot Law,
the manner permitted by it should be valid.
These methods were three in number: By
Is convention of delegates representing q
political party; by a primary meeting duly
organized representing a POLITICAL pnrty;
md by q certificate signed by not less than
snme law made provision for filling yacan-
cies on the ticket which might occur by
death or de clination, or by insuffcienoy of
the certificate. III the original nomination
Is made by n patty convention which has
delegated to a committee the power to FIJI
vacancies, the committee may do 30" is the
language of the law, the provisions of
which are held to be mandatory. The APP
pellant claims that the record shows that
Benton was not nominated by a majority OF
the executive committee. even conooding
that body the right to act for the conven-
xioo Tho opIv vperher cf tho avacrfivo
committee concerned in the nomination WAS
the secretary. The case of Price vs.. Lusk.
involving the Office of ~justice of the peace
for Belmont township, is referred to in
support of PiRott's position. In that oase
the supreme court held that Lusk was not
nominated in the manner prescribed by
law. and that his name should not have
been published or printed on the original
ballot.
On behalf of Benton it is claimed shat
the Australian law made provisions for the
publication of the official ballots By tho
county clerks, and also for the correction
of errors and omissions. The objects of
these provisions. it is held, we're to give
timely notice SO that objections could be
made to the official ballot before the cleo
ton. 1.-The conclusion Is irresistible" it is
claimed, "that the object designed to be
ton before the election, 30 as not to sab
init the voters to the risk of losing their
votes on account OF the neglect Of those in
interest or the error of some official" Num-
e.ous opinions are cited to uphold this
view. One OF them says: 'One who has
acauiesced in certain irregularit!es in the
manner of conducting IN election will not
be allowed after submitting himself to the
chances of an election, and being defeated,
to make such ~irregula tiles the ground OF
assailing the title of the officer elected"
Another in the same spirit saws: "When a
candidate for public office causes no timely
objection to be made before the election, be
should be regarded as having waived all
objections that may exist to the presence
on the official ballot of any names
of nominees not properly enti-
tied to be there" Points of
difference between this case aad tina of
Price VI Lusk are also pointed ont. In
the latter the certificate of nomination
was not fled within the required time, il
was not published by the county clerk, and
there was but ono regular nomination.
1t is claimed that if, for every error OF a
county clerk or harmless irregularity oil
election proceedings, citizens having nc
control over eithet are to lose their rights
OF choosing public officers. the reform bal
lot act, instead of being an imp; ovement
of the machinery of popular government,
the unsuspectinR voter. If tho nomination
OF Judge Benton had been carried ont witt
all the technical nioety desired by Pigott
the result OF the election. it is claimed,
would have been the same. irregularities
which do not produce q different result arr
not vicious.
The court will take the case under advise.
ment.