Fergus County argus. [volume] (Lewistown, Mont.) 1886-1946, 1903-11-25
THAT HlLGER INTERVIEW,

Last weeks Democrat contained an
interview with the Hon. David Hill
ger. representative from Fergus
ty. on the calling of the special Sos.
sion of the legislature. The interview
is remarkable for what it does not
contain. Being a Heinze adherent
and a personal friend of the governor,
Mr.. Hilger is very guarded in his ut
terances and apparently not disposed
to censure the latter for calling al en-
ira session.
However. Mr.. Hilger does not think
that il lies in the power of the IegisIa-
ture to do anything in the premises
and makes some statements that are
not iermane TO the issue involved in
the controversy.
He says 1T would certainly be pre-
posterous to think that the legisla-
ture of the state OF Montana could
compel the AmaIgamated Mining com
pany to continue operation"
No doubt of it. hence such an alb
snrd proposition has never been en-.
t%ertained. All that is asked or ex.
pected is that the Amalgamated com
pany. or any other corporation. which
has rights under the laws Of the state,
be protected in their rights through
courts established in part for that
purpose. OF course, corporations OF
individuals have a right TO do as they
please with their property as long as
they obey the laws and do not tres
pass upon the rights OF others.
Whether the legislature can enact
a law that will prove constitutional
in its application to the relief de
manded remains TO be seen. That is
a question for constitutional lawyers
TO determine, and not 10 be brushed
aside as impossible by a layman or Q
novice in such matters. 1t is believ
ed that some way will be found to Sc
cure justice in the district courts OF
this state. If not in a change OF
judges then in a change of venue In
civil actions transferring the cases t
other counties before unprecedented
judges. This would prove more cum
bersome but would undoubtedly give
the relief demanded.
The effort to get ID Jaw enacted
compelling a review of the evidence
in equity cases may meet with ser
ious objection for several reasons. l
would involve an immense amount o
additional work upon the supreme
court By going into the testimony
while the c%redibility of witnesses i
often shaken or determined by thei'
manner while in the chair. Cold, type
written testimony gives but little evi
dencc OF the conduct of a witness I'm
der crOss.examination. Besides,
really amounts to a double trial OF
cause and If open to n class OF lit
giants would be taken advantage OF b.
others. But IL is for the very reason
that the supreme court cannot review
the testimony in equity suits that jus
ticc may not be relied upon in all az
pealed eases. Therefore, the distric
court being virtually the court of las
resort in exceptional cases. 1t is o
vast importance that the lower cour
be above suspicion both as TO preju
dice and ~yenality. That such suspic
ion is well grounded against some o
the courts Of this state cannot be dc
MED.
Furthermore. Mr.. Hilger is wei
aware that the supreme court of thi
state as in many others, Is from on,
to two years behind with its worl
and unless ii sees fit to advance case
out Of urgent public necessity grea
harm might result in delay.
While Mr.. Hilger has tried to &c
as Tar away from the issue as possI
Bile in the alleged interview it is to b
hoped that he will go to Helena fire
from any "entangling alliances bu
determined to act for the best inter
tests OF his constituents in securing