The Wolf Point herald. (Wolf Point, Mont.) 1913-1940, 1920-08-19
JUDGE Conner AND
THE SUPREME COURT
(By Charles e. Taylor

trict Court of the twentieth judicial
district. A. w. Stangeland, in which
he alleges that Mr.. Stangeland is a
stranger in this district and there
fore should not be elected. The
above paper claims that Mr.. STANCE
land is the Dunn-Taylor candidate
for Judge. Mr.. Stangeland does not
even know Mr.. Dunn, only meeting
him once casually.
Mr.. Stangeland was nominated by
the Farmer-Labor leagues because he
is heartily in sympathy with the
Farmer-Labor programs and because
the farmers and laborers knew after
a thorough investigation that he is a
man to be depended upon and that
he is a man who will not protect
crooks in high places nor use his po-
sition to keep grafters from their
lust rewards and as a result Mr..
~Stangeland was endorsed and will be
nominated on the Democratic ticket
with a 2 tt l majority.
Mr.. Conner has been criticised for
his activities on the bench because
those activities deserved criticism.
The Supreme Court of the State
of Montana, by unanimous decision,
in a most remarkable decision, went
out of their way to suggest to Judge
Conner that he was violating the law
in auditing claims, illegally, over the
head of the county auditor, in the
following words in the case of Dolin
VS.. Major Mandamus case:
'It is true that the proviso in the
last sentence gives the judge of the
district court of the county the power
to order the payment of a claim
which has been disapproved by the
auditor. Conceding, for the mo-
ment, that the legislature could law
fully impose upon the district judge
the duty to consider in a summary
way any claim against the county,
the expression may order the same
paid employed in the proviso can
not mean more than hat the judge
may overrule the action of the audi
tor and approve the claim for it can
not be supposed that the legislature
intended to constitute the judge the
final arbiter between the county and
the claimant, and thus take away the
right to have the validity of any
claim against it judicially determin-
ed in the ordinary way. The county
as well as the claimant has a right
to its day in court and to have q
controversy over a disputed claim
tried by a jury. This right the leg
islature cannot take away. Besides
this, we are inclined to the opinion
that the proviso is open to the objec-
ton that by it the legislature under
took to cast upon the judge the duty
to exercise a power which pertains
exclusively to the executive branch
of the government, and thus repug-
nant to SECTION I OF ARTICLE
" OF THE CONSTITUTION. These
REMARKS ARE MERELY SUG-
GESTIVE HOWEVER. 1t is not our
purpose to express other than a ten
tative opinion as to the validity of
the ~proviso, FOR NO QUESTION IN
THIS BEHALF ARISES IN THIS
CASE"
In the above case and the above ex-
cerpt, the Supreme Court of the
State of Montana, all five judges con-
curing, felt justified in doing what
no supreme court in the state has
felt called upon in doing before, that
is going outside of the case under
consideration and rendering a deci-
sion declaring unlawful several of
the persistent acts of Judge Conner,
which acts had become so coarse
as to have created an i~ntolerable le-
gal situation in the state and which
acts were considered of enough con-
sequence to justify the supreme court
in taking the above remarkable steps
to set Judge conner right, by saying
that "THESE REMARKS ARE
SUGGESTIVE" and then explaining,
FOR NO QUESTION IN THIS Be
HALF ARISES IN THIS CASE"
The first time in the state of Mon
tana, the supreme court steps out of
the case before it and Incorporates a
suggestive decision in order to per-
suade a judge to stop violating the
law and ~resorting to extra legal
means to help his friend collect dis
puted bills against the county, and
that judge was Judge c. E. Conner.
That is the reason why the farmers
and laborers are supporting A. w
Stangeland for Judge and are not
~cnnnortino Conner.