The Anaconda standard., 1899-01-01

The above is a joyful New Years
| greeting to the long suffering people Of
Butte. It was announced from the
| bench of the district court yesterday,
and those 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
his decree will admit of but one con-
struction, and that is plain and sim
pie one.
| The smoke nuisance in Butte will
be effectualIy and permanently dis
posed of during Judge Lindsay'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 orac-
| tical way to dispose of the nuisance.
| Mr. Stapleton recommended action
against the smelters by injunction. His
report in full was as follows:
"To Hon. John Lindsay, judge of the
second judicial district court of Mon
tana: 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, l beg to submit the follow
ing:
There are three ways in which the
nuisance can be abated; first, by indict
ment or fnformation; second by civil
action; third, by abatement.
Tn, r1 In hn
namely, abatement, I desire to dispose
of that by saying that it is impractic
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 / do
not believe that any body of men in
| this county can abate the nuisance by
their own efforts without Infringing
upon the provisions of the penal code.
Coming back to the first method,
namely, criminal action by indict-
ment or information; if such an action
! is tbrought.at this time, your honor will
readily see the difficulties which
| must necessarily stand in the way Of a
| successful termination of the same. The
court is, of course, aware that in GRIM
inal 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 al least
| five different smelling works in this
county, from which dense smoke Of
some sort is daily issuing. In
a criminal action it would be necessary
to prove that the smoke from every
one of the works floods the city, and
that each particular body of smoke
| from each particular smelling works
is a nuisance under our penal code.
The above, of course, applies in case
| the different corporations are made
| joint defendants in the information or
Indictment. If, on the other hand, a
separate information or Indictment be
filed against each of these corpora tions,
it; will be necessary to prove beyond a
reasonable doubt, as to each and every
corpora ton, the facts already stated.
Under either form of procedure the
court will readily see the necessity for
action on the part of the county Off
cials in order to obtain this proof. It is,
of course, a matter of public knowl-
edge, but public knowledge is not the
sort of proof necessary, under the law,
to convince a jury beyond reasona ole
doubt Of the guilt of a defendant. It
will take time to obtain sufficient proof
of the nature desired, and for that rea-
son a crimi nal action of any sort will
not give immediate relief.
I'm regard to civil action. which
will be by injunction, there is no doubt
that an injunction can be legally had
against the smelling works, for the
This would practically give immediate
relief, Therefore, I would suggest that
the proper course to pursue would be
by injunction. either brought by the
city as a corporation, or by the county;
and upon 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,
would suggest the advisability of await.
ing the result of all investigation ny q
committee. or before the court, before
adopting the course spoken of herein
Respectfully submitted
GUY w. STAPLETON
County Attorney of Silver Bow Coun.
tS, Montana.