Rosebud County news. [volume] (Forsyth, Mont.) 1901-1906, 1903-11-12
oFFIcIAL PAPER OF ROSEBUD COUNTY
FINAL AND JUST

The Inter Mountain, under date OF
November 9th, makes reference (com-
plimentory, on the whole) to an article
which recently appeared in this paper,
stating that the supreme courts de-
cision in the mining litigation between
the Hinzie and the Amalgamated in
terests would be accepted by the pub
lie as "final and just"
The above mentioned paper attempts
to show us how it is possible under our
constitution, that the supreme court
could sustain Judge Clancy's decision,
and still the Amalgamated would be
the victim of a miscarriage of justice.
Their argument is most too profound
for us-they discuss the subject of the
different branches of our government
and show the relations of each to the
other-questions which we, as coun-
try newspaper, have very vague ideas
of.
However, upon the question of the
supreme court being unable to make
any findings upon the facts in a case,
we would say that it would be con-
trary to justice in ninety-nine out of
every hundred instances if they could
and did. That our readers may fully
comprehend us, we would explain, that
when the evidence in a case is conf let
ing, or in direct contradiction, the
trial Judge is the only authority. He
it is, who decides upon the evidence,
who is in position to scrutinize the
several witnesses and judge of the
truth of the evidence of each.
When an appeal is taken, the judges
of the supreme court have only the
cold passionless statements on paper
to guide them and the statement of a
hang dog, petit-larceny thief would
count for as much in that instance as
the statement of man of absolutely
irreproachable character.
For instance: A man is being tried
for murder; the deed was committed in
the presence of his wife and two men
of high character. The two men tes-
tify to having seen the deed committed;
the defendant and his wife deny it.
On paper, the statement of one is as
good as the statement of another.
Then how could an appellate court
make a finding upon the facts? They
could not possibly do so without a
guess at justice.
For that reason, the constitution pro-
vides, and wisely so, that the supreme
court can merely make corrections of
the legal errors committed by the lower
court in case. If the trial judge has
rendered his decision upon unsound
law, the supreme court corrects it.
We will grant this, however,
that prejudiced trial judge can ma
terially influence the final decision in
d case, in favor of his prejudice. But
in such cases it is always apparent to
the supreme court that a prejudice did
exist and they have always found
some way OF going behind the record in
case of that kind and giving fair
and impartial verdict. 1t is condi-
ton we all are subject to, and as fair
for one as another.
Another matter which is vaguely
limited at in the article in question is,
that an extraordinary session of the
Legislature could right things by pass.
ing certain Legislation. AS matte,
of fact, the Legislature could do nothing
that would affect the present condition
of affairs but submit an amendment O.
the constitution, with regard to the
powers of the supreme court, to tn,
voters.
We have already shown why sucl
an amendment should and will not b,