The Kalispell bee. [volume] (Kalispell, Mont.) 1900-192?, 1903-12-04

Such evidence when it reaches the
supreme court is in narrative form
only. Is not impressed by the pres
ence of witnesses and their manner
of testifying
Everyone must know there is a diff
ference in the effect of the same
words when delivered in open court
from the mouth OF witness and
when read from manuscript in mar
rative form. They may seem worthy
or credit in the one case. and posi-
lively unworthy of all credit in the
other.
Who can be unmindful of the in
fluence of the manner and carriage
of witness On the stand?
There are many things aside from
the literal import of the words utter
on which the value of his evidence
depends These it is impossible to
transfer to paper.
Taken in the aggregate. they con-
stitute vast moral power in elicit
ing the truth. all of which is lost
when read in another court or re-
produced i'm the form of narration
1t would seem that the judge who
tried the case looked upon the wit
ness, saw and heard the manner of
his testifying. is in a better position
to sift the truth and mete out justice
than a tribunal bereft of these ad.
vantages.
However. these are suggestions
which. Of course. pTesuppose a fair
trial before a fair Judge, and do not
in any manner assume to reflect the
consensus of opinion of the bar of
this state. nor are they considered
insuperable objections to such a sys-
tenn which obtains, I believe. in many
of the safes and uniformly in the
federal courts.
It is believed by many that the
power to review evidence on appeal
in equity cases already exists in the
supreme court and that what really
seems to be decided that in matters
of equitable nature it shall be the
duty of the supreme court to exercise
such power. and render such judg-
ment as OF right ought to be render
ed.
To what extent the supreme court
would be bound under the constitu-
ton to exercise this power. if confer
red, is question have not examin-
ed. but which suggests itself as
worthy OF prompt and careful consd-
Grafton; but in order that your work
NAV not fail for want of executive
authority and that no question may
arise on that account, recommend
lin the event you deem it wise or ex-
pedient to confer the power of review
as indicated in the proclamation)
that You also make it the duty of the
supreme court in equity cases of an
equitable nature to exercise such
questions of fact arising upon the
evidence presented. unless for good
cause new trial or the taking of
further evidence in the court below
shall be ordered. Care. however.
should be taken that the powers of
the supreme court in other cases are
in no manner abridged
AS before suggested. there may be
some question as to the validity OF
such Legislation. but it is certain that
the mere right to review in such
cases without an assurance that
such right will be exercised might
prove to be an empty and unavailing
power.
Aside from the contingent recon-
mendation made for the sole purpose
aforesaid, my only recomm endation
concerning these matters is that you
take up, consider and dispose of
them in the solemnity of thought and
freedom from bias which is presum-
ed to attend your deliberations, hew-
ing always to that line. which indi-
Gates the greatest good to the great
est number, letting the chips fall
where they may.
I have been importuned since the
proclamation was issued. calling this
session, to extend the scope of your
powers so as to include the creation
of railroad commission and provid-
ing for the initiative and referendum
direct primaries and numerous other
measures. which of properly framed.
would meet my approval, but which.
for obvious reasons ought not to be
injected into deliberations of a spe-
cial session called for special pur-
pose.
The constitution requires the gov
ernor to embrace in his proclama-
ton the Legislative subjects to be
considered. and this was intended to
apprise the public at large what
might be expected, so that by the dis
rnssion in the press and otherwise.
Continued on Page s.,