The Kalispell bee. [volume] (Kalispell, Mont.) 1900-192?, 1902-04-30
Supreme Court has So Decided and Settled
the Questi
: 99ss''ss' sss,,.y -
BUILDING WILL BEGIN AT ONCE
Ground and Plans Having Already Been Decided Upon.
In Supreme Court Judge Smiths Rulings Con
frmed in Every Important Particular.

claimed that the bonds were carried |
by majority of 53S votes, as, from |
their standpoint, it was necessary |
that the proposition should have a |
majority of all the votes cast at the |
election, and not a majority of the |
votes cast for or against that one |
question. The banks attorneys also |
held that, inasmuch as there were |
93S electors who failed to vote on
the proposition that their votes must |
be counted as if they had voted |
against it.
The commissioners, on the other
hand, held that the statute quoted |
did not mean majority of all the
electors voting, but that it did mean
majority of all the electors voting
on the one proposition, and there the
matter rested for year. The find
ings of the banks attorneys put a
stop to the sale of the bonds, as no
one would take them until the ques-
tion was settled.
On November 16, last a friendly
suit was brought against the commits
sioners by L. Tinkel and others to re-
strain them from selling the bonds.
The plaintiffs rested their case almost
entirely upon the construction of the
section referred to and asked that the
county commissioners be restrained
from issuing Flathead county bonds
to the extent of $55,000. They claimed
that the officials had no right to do
so, as the proposition to bond the
county had not been carried by a ma
jority of the electors of the county,
but had only been carried by a ma
jority of the votes cast for or against
that one question.
The case came up in the district
court in this city on November 16,
1901. Mr.. Tinkel being represented
by Foot & Pomeroy and the commits
sioners by County Attorney Oliver.
The question was argued by the at
torneys, and the court, after taking
the matter under consideration for
several days, rendered an opinion de-
nying the injunction asked for.
His opinion filled several typewrit-
ten pages and was a clear resume of
the whole question. Several authori-
ties were quoted to support his find
ings, among them being the decision
of the California supreme court on
similar question. The court held that
the meaning of article AIII was that
the proposition to bond the county
must meet with the approval of the
electors voting on that proposition,
and did not mean that majority of
all the electors of the county. must
be had 1t was his opinion, as gath
cred from similar cases decided by
the supreme court that the votes of
the 93S electors who failed to vote
upon the proposition must be counted
as if cast for the bonds and not
against.
The attorneys for the plaintiffs ap-
pealed from the decision of the lower
court and the case was taken to the
supreme court and argued by Judge
Pomeroy, who went to Helena for
that purpose.
Since then the supreme court has
had the question under consideration
day morning.
The site for the court house is on
block l06, on the south end of Main
street, and it is the intention to To-
cate it in the middle of the street,
providing the city will consent to va
cate the street. This will make the
court house block in the center of
Main street, with streets on all sides.
The county commissioners will
meet in special session next Monday
and Tuesday, to consider the prelim-
mary arrangements toward the con-
struction of the county court house
and jail C. E. Conrad who pur-
chased the bonds, is expected home
by that time, and the deal will then
be completed. The work on the
building will be commenced as soon
as possible, and it is the intention to
have it well under way by fall