The Helena independent. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1875-1943, 1894-05-15
THE ARGUMENTS.
Summing Up the Case Tor the Msa and tho
Court.

Summing Up the Case Tor the Msa and the
Court.
George Haldosn made .hs opening arsu-
ment for the men. Hc said that this was
an extrsordipary proceeding. The court
could exercise power only squslod
BY the czar Of Russia, thouah IL could not
20 so far. He claimed that by answering
the summons the men had purged them
selves OF contempt. and the oouis oonid not
receive any collateral evidence. IL thsrs
was any perjury found In the answers that
was O matter for future Rotion. He referred
to the afldavits Of ths citizens of Butte,
and said the court had right 10 consider
the chsrsctsr Of the people making them. as
10 the implied consent OF the railroad OH
cisls. Even n Finn did not have author
ity to give such an impression. the men
knew him az being In charge. Under nll
the circumstances the men were justified In
believing they could take the train. In re-
gard 10 Hogan the attorney said that man
had no desire TO shirk any responsibility.
He went out of the Butte yard with that
train under the impression that he would
no, be intsrfsred with. The others We
simply under his orders aud did
what be told them. Hogsn was
willing 10 have the court pass Oh bis case.
but as 20 the others he wanted to say they
had no knowledge and could have none OF
the matter. When men Ike these do what
they did. he begged the the court TO bear m
mind the trials OF such men who threw them-
solves 81 the judges feet suing for iusuos
and mercy. Mr.. Haldorn's argument va.
an Ablo one throughout. and carefully
siftsd the evidences In the Gffldsvlts In sup
port Of his claims that his clients should
be released.
EI.aoy. Tools followed as the represent
ative of ths railroad. He reviewed the
o.aitns SCI MP In the affidavits nlsd on be-
half OF the company and the marshal, as to
the taking Of the train aud the refusal 10
surrender il. In contempt proceeding,
where there was no intent TO put oneself In
contempt ID wAs customa'y 10 sAf so. aud
cypress some regrets. In this case no
regrets had bean expressed. He claimed
that thsrs was not fact or q substance of
conversation on which could be prsdioa,sd
the belief that that tho company weuld
place no impsdimeBm In the war OF ths men
going of with tho train. This vas u
case where the dignity OF tho cou,t was In.
yolved. II appeared TO have gotten out OF
the matter Of contempt aud become one Of
VIC alton OF Law. IL WAS the very incafna-
ton Of anarchy 10 say that men could
make a Law unto themsslves. take posses-
sion OF road, and interfere with ito bual-
nsss for several days In utter disregard of
life and property. tuoh proeesdinas would
hrIna the law into disrespeot. while inter
ostod as a citizen In the happiness aud
prosperity OF these people he must insist
that the law take hold and admlnister such
punishment az they deserved,
Diatfict Attorney Leslie, for the govern
upnt, followed. lie said he did not be-
lieye In the strongest measure OF punish.
ment, but suoh 40 ID was II must be certain.
| IL the courts were 10 be dsroRarded and
the more excuse sst up that men had Q
right 20 90 out and prey on tho community,
| 10 would coon DO question whether there
was any government. ns said he had lived
before TIE civil war and heard The natter
In,s ~ thunder that preceded IL. Bul be
could aAy there were slens to-day
of moro disregard for authority, Doie
OF the spirit OF Tubellion and
defiance, than there was up 10 within three
weeks OF the time the nrst Run was ned ou
Sumter. lhe papsTs we're full OF tho news
~ Iuen taking property from ihs ownef'
hands, And running u 10 suit them selvea
II affairs were being run wong In this
country. the Tieht way 10 remedy II waa the
pro or legal way. Temperlng ils Judgment
| with metcy tho court ahOull make such q
decision ~ would annoanoa 10 the world
that such spirit would hnd no ioleranes
| with N.
J, w. klnaey argued Tor the release OF
his client Maina, OF the Llvlngeton PoaL
aud ltobert II. smith closed i0F the de
fonae. lilo aaid N vas not necessary to 10
qulre whether the order Of oourb waa iEaued
OF ueryed on tho parties alleged % be Ia
contempt The question vaa ono which
| concerned their iutent, There muat bo
both action aud intention 10 constitute con-
/ tempt Thsfo vas no OvideVOs OF tho pat
tiss. othsr than Hogan, being informed OF
the prouess OF the eeuti IA wus not igno-
raIle OF thc law in this case, but ignorance
Of fact. This. OF itaslf, would exonefato