Fergus County argus. [volume] (Lewistown, Mont.) 1886-1946, 1904-06-29
FAIR TRIAL
BILL UPHELD
Supreme Court in a Unanimous opin-
ion upholds the Measure Passed
at the Extra Session.
THE LIMIT OF LEGISLATION
Court Believes Law Constitutional
But Evidently Doubts the Wisdom
of Its Passage.

Helena, June 22.-The famous fair
trial bill passed by the special SEES
sion of the Montana legislature last
December was declared constitutions
al by the supreme court in an opin.
ion handed down about 3 O'Clock. The
opinion Of the court prepared by JUS
tice William L. Holloway was exhaus-
tive, covering % pages, reviewing the
contentious of both sides at the argu-
ment in full. The court was unani'
nous.
The court ordered a peremptory
writ of prohibition to issue directed
to Judge Clancy compelling him TO
transfer the case that gave rise to
the appeal.
The decision grew out OF an appIi-
cation made by the Anaconda com
pany for a writ of prohibition to pre-
vent Judge Clancy from trying a case
it had against the Montana Ore Pur-
chasing company on the ground he
was biased and ]prejudiced against the
Anaconda company.
Several months ago exhaustive ar.
guments were made to the court for
and against the writ and the decis-
ion announced today Is the result.
Review Of Opinion.
The first point made was that the
legislation was not within the pur-
view of the governors call. It Is
held that il is fairly deduceable from
an examination of the proclamation
that the governors purpose in calling
the session was to secure the enact.
ment of some measure whereby a dis
trict Judge charged with bias and pre-.
judice should not be permitted to sit
and hear the case. Also that the lib
eral rule of Interpretation of a proc
lamation of this kind must be applied.
The second contention was that the
acts in question added additional
qualifications to those prescribed In
the constitution for district judges.
1t is held that the act does not have
anything to do with the right or elig.
Utility of any one to hold the office
of district judge.
Not Well Taken.
The third question was that the
acts violated the sections of the con.
stitution which provide that any dis
trict judge may hold court for any
other district Judge. The ground lF
held not to be well taken.
1t was next urged that the acts are
obnoxious to that part OF the consti'
tuition which confers on district
courts original jurisdiction in all cases
at law and in equity because the FL
ing Of the disquallfying affidavit op
crates TO deprive the judge of auth
GRITTY to proceed with the trial of q
cause and no provision is made fol
determining the alleged bias judicial
ly. The court holds that the author
ity Of the legislature to enact such
statutes is not derived from the con
stitution. that it is inherent with the
legislature.
Fifth Point Urged.
The LEI point made was that the
act was unconstitutional because nc
NOTICE was required 10 he given OF
the affidavit disqualifying a Judge
thereby violating the constitutional
provision that no person shall be de.
prived of life. liberty or property
without due process of law. II is held
that no purpose would be served by
giving notice, therefore no harm is
done.
The siyth noint decided 10 tho, tbe
acts are not special legislation, they
affecting all courts and litigants
alike. In reply TO the point made
that under the measure a speedy triaI
would be denied ~litigants the court
holds that 1t will not hold an act I'M
constitutional on this ground unless
1t is clearly shown hat the necessary
consequences Of the enforcement o.
the act will have the effect claimed