The producers news. [volume] (Plentywood, Mont.) 1918-1937, 1931-04-24
Sen. Kane Challenges Gov. Erickson
to Debate Referendum Measure No. s.
Pooling Voters
AN EDITORIAL

The advocates of the six million dollar debenture
bond issue resOrtng contention every sOph
istry calculated to fool the voters into voting for the
referendum.
The paid pleaders fir the declare that inter-
preng the law the Supreme Court will be bound by the
intentions of the legislature Then they declare that the
legislature did not to levy extra Scent gas tax
In fact that one had such idea in mind and
that the suggestion is prepOsterus ad ridiculous being
only advanced by malicious and ill natured people intent
on doing the State of Montana wOntOn wrong
They decaim that if the referendum provides for an
extra scent tax then they against it, but that it
does not so provide. Mo! Not by any stretch of the
ina gnatOn.
They say, with the assurance calculated to convince
the most skepca that regardless of the plain text of
the law, the Supreme Court will be guided in its inter-
probation, not by what the law says in words plain
as to allow of no misunderstanding but by what the leg
sature intended, and that the legislature did in
must 10 hold.
We don't know where these men get their law The
theory is entirely novel and prepared for the occasion
We find under the subject of Interpretation of Statutes
that urists contend that when the words of law fail to
convey meaning, the court shall presume that the law
means some ing and in such a it shall make in
quiry to ascertain possible from the records tt the
printed BILL the reports and the debates if there
ord of them the meaning where meaning be.
But nowhere do find that the court shall go behind
the plain words Ot act words that have plain and
understandable significance when taken they are to
give those words meaning exactly opposite what they
plainly state No one else either his heard of any
such practice
And in the case of the debenture BILL what will the
court find if makes research into the records Of the
22nd assembly? viii it find evidence to contrad4 the
plain meaning of the law. will such research sustain
the plain and simple wording of the law? Let seeI
The court reads the law. It must presume it means
what 1t has judicial knowledge of the inten
ton of the legislature Evidence be adduced. The
evidence shows House Bill $50 introduced f
teth days that it read twice. referred the commit
tee on highways reported back Immediately for passage
was by notion objection considered printed con-
trary to the constitution put general file referred to
committee of the whole reported for passage without
pate put on third reading and passed all within few
mTtted to the senate before the clock struck midnight on
the eth day The records will show that it read
HIGHWAY committee reported for passage by that COM
mittee put on general fie amended and reported for
by the committee of the whole passed on third
reading with eight votes against returned to house for
concurrence in amendments enrolled and signed by the
speaker OF the mouse and the president of the be-
fore tn different houses in session and sent to the
governor for his approval and approved by him.
There records of the debates in the commit
tee of the whole in theOntana legislature But inquiry
will disclose that Sem Donovan and Sen. Kane spoke
vded for another scent gas tax that il did NOT nroJ
for refunds that it made the law irrepeaabIe and
mamendable after debenures had once been issued
proposed amendments to eliminate this extra tax and to
provide for refunds which amendments were defeated
The court will find upon reading House Bill No. the
original debenre which the supreme court declared nm
constitutional because it provided for the creation of
debt in excess of 100000 without the approval of the
people that it did not contain Secion of the referendum
act and that House Bill No. $50 contained MANY provi
sOns not in House Bill Mo- l. House Bill $50 did not re-
peal Referendum No. 81 the gas tax bill or amend
it. 1t levied tax for specific purpose which is not
the same for which the gas tax levied
intention of the legislature except to confirm the inen
ton of the legislature to do just exactly what the law 50
plainly provides?
Can the search the minds of $50 Legislators and
find what they had in mind other than what the Ia saws?
Can the senators say they not advised as to vha
in the law? Can they say that thew did NOT heaI
Sen. Donovan and Sen. Kane? Can they saw that thes
of such inferior understanding as to iustifv tn
ignoring of their contentious? OF course they cannot
And if there a question of the law uroposins
what they did not intend why did thev not amend th
law, which could have been simply done in such av a
to do with and all doubt and to clearly express
their mtentOns3
They did not do what was SO easy to do hecausa th
legislature intended the law TO do Just what SO pIain
provides '
The cannot find facts sustain apv corcIusio
that the legislature had anything in mind excent 70
this law just 1T is written Statements 70 the con
trary just much ridiculous argon The matter !
not remote and farfeched the sponsors of the refer
endum bond issue would have believe but as near
as simple and as plain as wart the nose
Tom Stout says in editorial in the Iewisovr Dem
Ocrat that If the ncOncevabe happens and the
court finds that referendum IS provides for another Sen
tax, impossible it is to contemplate then IN
matter be rected by the simple expediert If calm
extra session of the legislature to quickly amend n
law. Sounds easy, so easy!
Yes, the legislature can amend the law provid;D
there debenture bonds OUTSTANDING and unvai5
it is done before bond issued but otherwise IL "a,
not amend the law. Others explain that the next asseu
Yes but after debenure bonds have been sofia mn
suant TO the law for is of the contract between n
state and the buyer that the debenture is issued aar