Fergus County argus. [volume] (Lewistown, Mont.) 1886-1946, 1894-08-09
AS TO COMMISSIONERS.

The question of electing county COM
missioners is receiving considerable
attention just at present. From the
Helena papers it is learned that At
torney General Haskell will endeavor
to bring the matter before the supreme
court for n decision in the following
manner: by having the chairman
and secretary of the county onven
ton make ~ separate certificate con-
tanning the nominees for the office of
the county clerk. and at the same time
have the county clerk refuse IL file this
certificate, hut retain it in his office.
Upon his refusal to file ihis certificate
we would request the county attorney
to prepare "A petition for "A writ of man
date. or we would do so, and cause the
anne tn he served upon the county
clerk of the county. The county clerk
would, through his attorney, set up rs
a defense thereto that no county com
missioners arctic he elected this year,
for that the amendment To the consti-
tuition was never legally adopted and
is no part of the constitution, hence
never was in force or effect. All ofthis
will he without expense to the county
and the clerk will not he required to
appear in the Supreme Court, but
appear 10y attorney without any cos
10 him" The law does not allow Ger
tificates of nomination to be filed prior
to Sept. Z, but the Attorney General
suggests that the case he brought NJ
Immediately after that date so as to
have the question fairly and fully
decided by the Supreme Court before
the nominees for county commission
ers have beer assessed or expended
any money for their election.
But this still leaves the matter il
bad shape in cases where men nov
holding office as commissioners are
candidates for other offices, presum
, ing that they retired this fall. 1t is un
: fortunate that u decision cannot b,
: reached before the conventions meet
However, there is a great difierenc,
, of opinion upon the legal phase of thu
t question. Able lawyers in the state
I contrary to the attorney general, hol,
t that the error in not giving the full
. notice by publication of the amend
mcnt, will not invalidate an election
e and advise the nomination of com
{ missioners. The Helena Herald O
this point, and says:
1t was in fact published in at least on
II paper in every county in the state, but no
e for the full period of three months. 1t j
= well established that such IA Tact does no
n iuvalidate an election. The supreme cour
uf Massachusetts settled that when it he'll
r that IAN election will not be set aside b.
, cause the law requiring the giving of tn
notice thereof had not been strictly 70
lowed, If such notice were given as that tn
" great body "f the electors were informed q
} the time, purpose and place of the elc,
e ton" In Ohio the same opinion was es
pressed by the court of last resort. whic
added that if the contrary view were col
L rect lit would always be in the power of
ministerial officer. by his malfeasanc
Il Ia prevent a legal election" There is
perfect uniformity in the decision of til
4 courts Ia this effect in the states wher
the question has arisen.
h We believe this will be the position
taken 10y the supreme court when tn
q question is submitted for \ decision.