The Billings gazette. [volume] (Billings, Mont.) 1896-1919, 1900-12-04
THE COURT HOUSE MIDDLE.

THE COURT HOUSE MIDDLE.
To the layman the constructions oc
~casionally put upon the provisions o
the law are SO at variance with wha
the ordinary mind give them tina
very often he finds himself unable t,
grasp the nice differentials that tn
legal mind is capable of applying il
cases where the reason therefore doe
no seem to exist. Thus in an cleo
ton for choice Of public officers the
one receiving the highest vote is de
clared to be elected and everybody
abides by the result, except in cases Of
apparent Or we'll known fraud. But
not so when the matter Of voting pub
lie and needed improvements is in.
volved. Here the ordinary rule OF
majoriries and pluralities, according
to some gentlemen of authority, does
not hold good. Just now Yellowstone
county finds itself involved in this
law of difference, as it may be termed.
At the last election the proposition
of buying. a site and building a court
house and Jail was submitted to the
voters of the county. On the face of
the returns the proposition prevailed,
and by a handsome majority. Of the
oofro1 p0fn II, tho rr,ncfi0r fn hr1i1l
the affirmative was in the proportion
of three to one. Ordinarily this would
seem to settle the question, but under
a ruling of the former attorney general
it is far from settled. He holds that
all ballots must be counted and ap-
piled to the result, the blanks as we'll
a S those giving the manifest intent Of
the voter. His construction of the
law is that every ballot is" either for
Or against the question and holds that
an absolute majority of the entire
vote OF the county must be cast in IA
vor of the proposition before the same
can be carried into effect. Taking this
form Of reasoning as the basis of his
opinion, he rules that the blank bal
lots must be counted as being against
the proposition. Thus, while the pre-
ponderance Of preference expressed
by the marked ballots was for buying
a site and constructing a court house,
yet a majority of all the voters of the
county did not SO express themselves
and according to his opinion the ques-
tion was defeated.
This opinion of Mr.. Haskell, the at
torney general referred to, is shared by
Judge Loud, who, it will be remem-
bered, decided that way in the case Of
a bridge it was sought to build in this
county some time ago..
While The Gazette does not pretend
to be an authority on law, and by it's
very confession of ignorance probably
places itself in a position where it
should not express an opinion, still it
cannot see why the difference should
be made in the case of an individual
and a proposition. In common with
the majority Of the people of the
county it desires to see a court house
built. The necessity of such an insti-
tuition all admit. To The Gazette's
way OF thinking the only effective
way to obtain a decision that is final
and binding and which will relieve
the county commissioners from their
present condition Of doubt and uncer-
tainty lies in the direction of the
courts. Mandamus proceedings could
be instituted against the board to
compel it to comply with the ex-
pressed wish of the majority of those
who voted at the last election. While
the district court, in view of the de-
clsion already referred to, might re-
fuse to issue the writ, the matter
could be taken to the supreme court
for final adjudication and settled for
once and all. The question has never
been passed upon by that body and
until it is, it will always be in doubt
and the same annoying condition that
now exists will continue. Let some
of those who voted for the proposition
take steps in the direction advised and
speedily as possible settle whether the
recent election settled the matter of a
court house or whether it must be
voted upon again.
NO ANALOGY EXISTS.