The Daily Missoulian. [volume] (Missoula, Mont.) 1904-1961, 1909-01-26

| affected as to cause unprecedented de
| preston in the most populous par
| of the state; that the county govern.
| ment of one county of the state may
not be able to exist; that the farmers
In the valleys adjacent to Butte an6
Anaconda will not have nearly as
good market as they have enjoyed;
that that industry of smelling copper
sulphide ores will be driven from the
state and that values of many kinds
of property will either be practically
| destroyed or seriously injured-re-
membering always that under the evil
dence as he has submitted his case,
discretion, wisely, imperatively guild
ed by the spirit of justice does not
demand that the injunction as prayed
fer should issue.
Not Necessarily.
TT does not necessarily follow, how
ever, that his bill should be dismissed.
This has been a litigation of over
much expense. It's consequences are
Of interest to many people and keep
ing in mind the essential fact that
animal health is being affected, if
there can be any reasonable preven-
tive remedy applied by court of
equity, every larger consideration de-
mands that it should be; that Is to
say, Notwithstanding the denial of the
writ of injunction as prayed for, if a
measure of relief less than that which
complainant has sought to prove he is
entitled to can be awarded to him, he
should have it by some form of judi
cial order. Equity having Jurisdiction
of the parties and the subject matter,
WILL therefore, retain the bill, in dill
gent effort to afford all the relief reas-
enable and possible under it's alIega-
tions. Where the defendant has a
clear ultimate right to do the act
sought to be enjoined upon certain
possible conditions the courts will en-
deavor to adjust their orders so as to
give to the complainants the substan-
tial benefit of such conditions, while
not restraining the defendant from
the exercise of it's ultimate rights.
Deeply Sensible.
Il am always deply sensible, too,
how especially important it is in the
practical preservation Of the equality
of the law, that when a man Of limit
ed means seeks relief against a cor
poration or individual Of very great
wealth, his property rights must be
protected with scrupulous care against
threatened or continued unlawful en-
croachments without unnecessarily
forcing him into litigation so expen-
sive or protracted that 1t often means
mpoverishment or denial of substan-
tial justice. Let 1t not be understood
In saying this I mean to imply that
the defendants herein have assumed
any unfair attitude tward Mr.. Bliss or
others in the Deer Lodge valley; on
the contrary as the case is submitted
it appears that they were ready to
treat with him and other landowners
and were willing to buy his land, and
consider claims of injury, but their ad-
vances were checked by Mr.. Bliss re-
fusal to sell and by the ultimatum of
March 4. 1905, from the association.
Reasonable Relief.
Nevertheless, the court will not
peremptorly turn the complainant
away, but will use it's power, already
invoked in this court, to give him such
relief as may be reasonably possible
without destroying the defendants
business But, for lack of informa-
ton, the court can make no such spe-
cific order as will be just to both sides.
However, after a study of the evidence
of Mr.. Matthewson, superintendent of
the Washoe smelter, I take it upon
myself as a chancellor to say that
am not satisfied that the construction
of additional arsenic furnaces will not
help the situation, or that there may
not be some system Of spraying the
smoke and cooling the gases which
will aid in settling flue dust, or that
a greater width and height to the
chambers may not be effective aids,
or that further system of filters may
not be devised or that briquetting flue
dust may not be of help or that an
of bags may not be made
or other means applied. perhaps dis
covered since this suit was instituted,
which will materially aid in reducing
the quantities of escaping arsenic
therefore think the more equitable
course to pursue is to call for further
evidence, with respect to the subject
Of adopting other or additional means
the prevent the release of arsenic, to
the end that ! may be more fully ad-
vised in the premises before making
final disposition of the case.
Injunction Denied.
Therefore, the order in the case is
that the injunction as prayed for is
denied; but the bill Is retained for the
purpose of enabling the court to re-
CONTINUED on Page Four)