The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-03-20

it undertakes to prescribe different
qualifications to vote in school district
No. 1 of Silver Bow county. han I'm
any other district in said county. Fifth
Realtors contend that IL II a local
and special law regulating elections
In that IL puts the election of school
trustees in district No. l of Silver Bow.
under the supervision of the county
commissioners. while the election. of
school trustees in every other school
district in said county is under the SUI
pervision n control of the school
trustees.
'"Third-Relators contend that the
greater part of aid senate bill is void
that is. all the sections thereof which
attempt to amend the Political Code.
except sections 1870 and 1872, because
no other sections are mentioned in the
title of sale bill to be amended.
"Fourth-Relators further contend
the act is unconstitutional I'm that IL
provides that persons not qualified to
vote may be registered and go tn the
polls. If they can get there. under the
provisions Of said act. and that N of
the judges shall take their ballot and
deposit IL i'm the ballot box.
"Fffth-Relators contend that said
act is unconstitutional in that ii pro-
vides three years term for school trus-
tees elected Hereunder. whereas the
constitution restricts such term To two
years. article l6. paragraph 6.
"Sixth-Relators contend that the
law is unconstitutional I'm that ii in
creases the compensation of officers
during their terms.
observation-disclosures contend hat IL Is
unconstitutional because IL debars and
excludes more than 1000 voters Of
school district No. ! of Silver Bow
county from the polls.
NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. contend hat said
senate bill No. sc was never passed by
the Legislative assembly of the state of
Montana.
THE above and foregoing several
grounds of unconstitutionality and in
validity are all and every one of the
grounds of complaint of REALTORS in the
complaint.
ITO the court the all-important ques-
ton i'm this case is: Was the act IN
question legally enacted? As to this
question, the court has "a say that the
great number of authorities cited by
the jealous n able attorneys on both
sides OF this case have been carefully
read and considered. We refer to the
143 United States reports, Field ".
Clark. page 649. The foot notes in this
case furnish reference to the decisions
OF most of the supreme courts of the
states of the union. and they are SO
voluminous nat there will be no at
tempt to oun them over in this opin-
ion, nor Is there any use In doing so in
this opinion, as the reference Ia the
certified copy of the Journa of the
house and senate in evidence I'm this
case, to the mind of this court, is de-
cisive of the main question of this case
and clearly proves. to our mind, that
the Journal shows that the said bill,
No. So, passed both houses and is the
school law of Montana at this time. SO
believing. this court decides that said
bill No. Sc was legally passed in both
houses of the legislature constitution
ally. The court arrives at this conclu-
sion from reading the certified copies
of the Journals.
AS the first contention OF the re-
lators that IL IL unconstitutional for the
reason hat IL breaks and destroys the
system and uniformity demanded by
the constitution i'm establishing and
maintaining a uniform system of pub
lie free common schools. After a care
full study of authorities we see nothing
of merit In the contention. In support
Of this see Ewing V. Hoblitzelle. So Mo-.
-, State V Foil. II Mo. $50. hat "A stat
ute which relates to persons and things
as a class is "a general law. while one
which relates to particular persons or
things of "a class is special and comes
within the constitutional prohibition
against special laws. is but the mere
general statement of a rule. and is to
be qualified by the constitution that
peculiarities and differences which will
serve To distinguish persons or things
as a class for many purposes do not
necessarily furnish any basis whatever
for legislation for classification. See
the state eX rel. the Attorney General
v. Miller. 100 Mo. 439.
The Legislature has "A right Ia clas-
sify towns, cities. townships, wards or
AlAA 1taN sat- a
vs.. Phila. and others, Il Pa. 81. 33S,
Kilgore vs.. Magee ct al. 50 Pa. 81.
i0l. and cases cited. What classified
ton will be sustained. see II Amer. &
Eng. Ency., ISL Il and notes.
"A law which provides "A better sys-
tenn in cities thar in counties is not
special. local or unconstitutional II
does not violate the uniformity required
by the constitution. Holmes q Bull
Fur. co. Va. Hedges. IS Pac. 9i1, Lan
dies vs.. Ashworth. II Alt. Rep. 1917.
State vs.. Sherer. 40 Ohio st. 215.
This court holds that the title Of
the said act il sufficient because it
names the first and last sections. and
adds the word inclusive after the last
section.
AS To all that part Of relators' con
tention as To registration of voters and
the claim that 1000 voters were de-
prived of the right to vote because of
the fac that there were only five places
To vote. is dimissed with the statement
that that has M place in this conten-
ton. See ID edition McCreary on EleC-
tions, Pars. 10 and IL.
IF there be defects in the Law Of any
kind the necessary relief should he
sought by amendment i'm the legisla-
ture and not by asking "A court to set
the law aside because of serious de-
feCts therein. and believing. as this
court does. that the said act is consti-
tutional and "A legally enacted law OF
the state Of Montana. the rule upon
the defendants tn show cause is dis
charged and the writ denied, and his
court refuses to put the relators into
h possession of the said offices OF
school directors. n that this action is
hereby dismissed. and that the defend