The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-12-23

guilty. He starts out with the state
the facts. But he mentions no place
that can be found upon the map. He
anne no witness. He claims that he
deposited the n Of his bear. the
only remaining proof. in che First Ma
tional bank of Helena. and that they
priated by the officers OF that institu-
ton. Now he should nave known that
there is a belief prevalent in this state
i'm some places that such an institution
as the First National bank at Helena
never at any time had any substantial
existence. but 1t vas a big name only.
He should also have known that IL This
evidence were forthcoming it could be
used Just as well to establish what the
umpire believes to be the facts about
the disappearance OF his bear. to-wit.,
that he himself ate IL up bodily.
That this is true is apparent from the
fact that the associate justice is the
only survivor OF that fatal day and that
the bears carcass has entirely disap-
peared. But there is a more serious
charge to be made against this contest
ant. In the Oregon bear story the bear
ate the man. though the man lived to
tell the story. In this case the justice
ate the bear and lived to give his own
version of the affair. Thus the conclu-
sion is reached that the justice has been
guilty OF what is known in law as a
royal seizure" or. as expressed in the
classic terms OF the law. reus furti. for
evidently his story is but a fair imita-
ton of the Oregon story. In short. this
story is a wider departure from the
truth than that of the chief justice.
owing to less experience i'm these mat
tiers on the part of the associate justice;
but experience goes for nought here.
The judgment OF the umpire is that
the author has produced what is known
in law as a mendacium expertissimum.
The remaining story is what in the
classic terms of the law is denominated
a mendacium impudens (shameless). In
fact the umpire is of the opinion that
the author has here transcribed every
thing in the way of romancing. to put
ii mildly. that IL has ever been his mis-
fortune to observe. The main vice of
the story is manifest in the observation
that the author has combined in one a
fish story and a bear story. not being
satisfied to exercise his wonderful pow
ers in any single field Of man In
the first place. this Is a mean advan-
tage to TAX of his adversaries, and. in
the second place. he makes no attempt
to conceal his own extravaganza. And
then he winds up the affair by eating n
bear as big as a Northern Pacific snow
pillow n 1885 pounds of fish. which
he tells us with all the e~ffrontery posi-
BILE hat the bear had cooked and pack
ed way in a rave for his special bene-
fit. The umpire has made these es-
Inmates carefully from the figures fur
nished by the contestant. 1t is true he
was assisted-he says-by a companion,
but this Is without foundation. except
ing his own testimony. and of course
this is entitled to no credit.
The umpire has tried 20 be fair and
candid in this whole investigation.
Whatever %harshness of expression he
has used. il seems to be deserved.
though he has confined himself strictly
to the use of terms purely technical. He
trusts that the conclusions reached will
commend themselves to the public. 1t
Is therefore ordered that W. Y. Penn
berton, chief Justice. be fined i'm the sum
of $40; that Associate Justice w. II.
Hunt be mulcted in the sum Of SIS. and
that W.T.. Pigott be assessed in the sum
of s25. II is further adjudged that these
gentlemen and the regulations they
nave gained be remanded to the Gus
tody of their admirlng constituents for
the purpose of reformation and instruc-
ton, until such time as they may b.
permitted to go at large again in quest
Of other bear stories.
THEO. BRANTLY.
At Chambers. Anaconda. Dec. 22, 1898.