The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-02-15
BY THE SUPREME COURT
Several Highly Interesting De-
cisions Are Handed Down.
BIG DITCH ARGUMENTS
School Teachers Are school Facil
Within tho Meaning of the Law.
a Sheriff's Posse Is Not En-
titled to Compensation.
Special Dispatch TO the Standard.

Helena. zen. Ill Tie supreme Ibuil
met this morning, and besides handing
down seven opinions listened to argu
ments upon the motion TO show cause
why the arid land commission should
not be prohibited from proceeding with
y the construction of the big canal il
proposes to build in Yellowstone coun-
ty. The proceedings are in the nature
of a friendly suit 10 obtain from the
supreme court an Interpretation of
some features of the law under which
the commission proposes to carry on
the work, and about which there seems
to be difference of opinion. The case
was fully described in the Standard at
the time Attorney General Nolan made
application to the court for the writ.
The chief points the court will pass
upon are whether the bonds to be is
sued in payment for the work will be
liens upon the water. and whether the
commission must not construct a ditch
sufficiently large enough To furnish
water to all of the adjacent lands, as
well as those that the state will ac-
quire under the provisions of the Carey
act and those belonging to the Northern
Pacific. The arguments We're made to
the court by the attorney general and
by William Wallace An early deci-
sion is expected
Among the opinions rendered. the
public will be more or less interested i'm
Charles Sears VS. Gallatin county COM
missioners, as it lays down the doc
trfne that the members of a sheriff's
posse comitatus are not entitled to
compensation for their services. Sears
was one of the posse that started out
with Sheriff Fransham Of Gallatin
county to run down the Morgan gang
OF desperadoes in January 1897 at
which time. il will be remembered.
Deputy Sheriff Allen lost his life. Sears
.yee,A III ,t
fie and ammunition. He expended
$1,000 for feeding himself and horse,
and devoted seven days To assisting
the sheriff. He put In a bill to the
commissioners for s25. This was dis
allowed. He appealed to the district
court, where the commissioners action
was sustained. From the latter ruling
he carried the case to the supreme
court. Justice Pigott, for the court, in
affirming the decision of the lower
court, holds that no expressed or inn
piled provision of statute exists max
ing provision for the expenses of mem
bers of a posse comitatus. Sears serv-
ices were 'of the class of general serv
ices which every man is bound to rem
der for the general as we'll as his own
individual good" and, therefore, is
not entitled to recovery from the coun-
ty any compensation for the same.
Discussing the points at issue the
court says:
1.-THE statutes of Montana with re-
Rpect to the posse eomitatus are, in
the main, declaratory of the common
law. Our attention has not been called
to any case holding that the services
of a member of the posse may be COM
pensated by the county. The supreme
court of Washington In Chaplin VS..
Ferry, supra. said: If they We're part
of the sheriffs posse. we find no au-
fhority for making them compensation
out of the county treasury. The serV
ices of the citizen as a member of the
posse comitatus is one which is based
purely on patriotism and strict duty,
and has never, so far as an investga-
tion goes. been a compensated serv-
Ice While these remarks of the court
may not have been necessary to Il de-
cisfon we are satisfied that they an
nounee the correct rule of law.
THE state. in consideration of its
protection extended, may impose upon
Its inhabitants the duty of rendering
1t services, at least in an emergency
requiring the apprehension of crimi
nal or one charged with the commits
sion of public offense, and these serv-
ices are, as is well expressed by the
supreme court of Oregon in a case in
volving the principle here invoked, of
the class of general services which
every man is bound to render for the
general as well as his own individual
>. "
% Pac. Rep. 1901
1T is further commended that the case
of Yayapai county VS.. O Neil fAriZonal
% Pac. Rep. 430. is persuasive author
ity in appellants favor Without eX-
pressing any opinion on the course of
reasoning or the result reached in that
case. we think 1t sufficient to say that
fhe doctrine announced by the court in
the Arizona case Is not pertinent to the
question raised In the case at bar.
There the board of supervisors en-
ployed the sheriff of Yavapai county to
go to Utah for the purpose OF SUBJ
poenaing persons there resident who
were needed as witnesses in a criminal
action pending in Arizona. and ordered
that he be allowed mileage therefor.
The point decided by the court was that
rhe sheriff acted, not as sheriff, but as
a mere messenger, and If actually en-
ployed In that service, he was entitled
10 compensation.
Appellant is not entitled TO recover
from the county compensation for
services rendered. or reimbursement for
expenses incurred as a member Of the
sheriff's posse The Judgment appealed
from will. therefore, be affirmed, and il
is so ordered
1t will interest the teachers of Mon
sana to know that the supreme court
holds them TO be school facilities"
within the meaning attached to those
words by the legislature. That is
shown in the decision in the case Of the
state ex rel. Mrs. i, c. Knight vs..
Alfred Cave, treasurer of Missoula
county. an appeal from the action of
Judge Woody in granting writ III
mandamus directing the treasurer 10
pay warrant of so issued To Mrs
Knight as a teacher. drawn upon d
fund raised by a special vote TO fur
nish additional school facilities" The
treasurer had declined to pay the war
Aa1 H.. a.
teachers could be cIassed az school Ia
cilities." Judge Woody having decided
in favor Of Mrs. Knight. the treasurer
appealed TO the supreme court. The