The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-01-01

kfectihs 10 the ions SUFFERING people OF
Butte. II was announced from the
bench of the district court yesterday,
and hos who know Judge Lindsay
best will unite in an assurance TO the
people that his honor means exactly
what he says and that the language OF
struction. and that is a plain and SIM
pie one.
The smoke nuisance In Butte viii
be effectuaIiy and permanently dis.
posed Of during Judge Llndsay's term
on the bench.
The question came up In court yester-
day on the report of County Attorney
Stapleton as to the best and most prac-
teal way to dispose OF the nuisance.
Mr.. Stapleton recommended action
against the smeiters by injunction. His
report In full was as follows:
T Hon. John Lindsay. judge Of TIE
second judicial district court of Mon
ana In compliance with your order
requiring me to report as to what I
consider the best. quickest and most
practical way to dispose of the smoke
nuisance. ! beg TO submit the follow
ing:
There are three ways in which the
nuisance can be abated: first. by indict-
ment or ~information; second. by civil
action: third. by abatement.
in regard to the third method.
namely. abatement. I desire TO dispose
- tA.s 49, ..xNi,- ,A., a, A.. g.---u.E-
able. for The reason that such an action
would undoubtedly result in a breach
Of the peace and render those abating
the nuisance liable criminally. for l do
not believe hat any body of men in
this county can abate the nuisance bv
their own. efforts without infringing
upon. the provisions Of the penal code.
Coming back 20 the first method.
namely. a criminal action by indict-
ment or information: II such an action
is brought at his time, your honor will
readily see the difficulties which
must necessarily stand in the way 81 a
successful termination OF the same. The
court Is. Of course. aware that in Grim
nal actions every defendant must be
proved guilty before any reasonable
doubt in order for the state TO obtain
a conviction. your officer Is inform
ed. and believes. that there are at least
five different smelling works in this
county. from which dense smoke Of
some sort is daily issuing. In
a cr1minal action IL would be necessary
to prove that the smoke from every
one Of the works God the city. ~
that each particular body Of smoke
from each particular smelling works
Is a nuisance under our penal code.
The above, of course. applies in Ease
the different corporations are made
joint defendants In the information or
Indictment. IL. on the other hand. a
separate Information or indictment be
filed against each of these corporations.
IL viii be necessary to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt. az TO each and every
corporation. the facts already stated.
Under either form Of procedure the
court will readily see the necessity Tor
action on the part OF the county on
Gals in order to obtain this proof. II is.
VI NNe'@' " hhaNe'i w putht httNl-
edge, but public knowledge is not the
sort of proof necessary. under the law.
to convince a jury beyond a reasonable
doubt OF the guilt Of a defendant. IL
will take tim to obtain sufficient proof
Of the nature desired. and for thai G
son a criminal action OF any sort will
not give immediate relief.
I'm regard to a civil action. which
will be by injunction. there is no doubt
that In injunction can be legally had
against the smelling works. for the
purpose of abating the smoke nuisance.
This would practically give immediate
relief. Therefore. I would sugges that
the proper course TO pursue would be
by injunction. either brought by the
city as a corporation. or by the county:
and apo the granting of the injunc-
ton, that there be Instructions given
to the proper officials to obtain the ne
cessary evidence upon which to base a
criminal Information. However. I
would suggest the ~advisability OF await
ing the result Of an investigation ny a
committee. or before the court. before
adopting the course spoken OF herein.
Respectfully submitted.
GUY w. STAPLETON.
County Attorney of Silver Bow Coun-
ty, Montana
|