The producers news. [volume] (Plentywood, Mont.) 1918-1937, 1936-06-19
LIVINGSTON WINS
(COntinued from Page u

case, Judge Leiper ordered the
clerk of the district court to re-
turn the money to the city.
Three Judges Disqualified
When the case first came un for
hearing. Judge Berg was disduali-
lied. Two other jurists were then
called in, and both also disoual; +.
fled. Judge Leiper was finally
selected to preside.
Judge Leiper in his decision
ruled that an injunction shall no
issued out of said court. per-
manently restraining and enioin-
ing the commission from in any,
wise or at all enforcing it's order.
and directed the clerk of the court
to turn over to the CITY treasurer
OF Livingston all monies impound-
ed under the order issued by Judge
Berg.
In his order Judge Leiper said:
An officer may not lawfully act
as his whim or caprice NAV die
tate, but onl y in accordance with
that authority with which he is
clothed by the law. Any other
doctrine is destructive of the fun
damental principles of our whole
system of government. That is
but another way Of saying that if
A, as an Individual, feels impeiied
to put his own hand into his own
pocket and extract therefrom his
own money or other property, and
give that to his less fortunate
brother, such an act is to be high
ly commended. But A, as an Off
Ger, or otherwise, may not put his
hand into the pocket of another
and satisfy AS individual feelings
OF generosity by giving to another
that which does not belong to A,
and which the law does not au-
thorize A to give.
Experience teaches that human
rights and property rights are
much more secure when rested
upon the firm foundation of es-
tablished law than when dependent
upon the within of an Individual. a
board, commission, or a bureau.
These propositions are So self
evident that citation of authorities
would be altogether superflOus.
For these and many other reasons
which it is unnecessary to enum-
crate, the officers of the plaintiff
city were not only authorized to
do the very things which have
been done in this regard, but it
was their duty as officers to do
so. 1t follows that the order of
the utility commission covering
this phase of the controversy is
null and void"
Further on in his order, Judge
Leiper states:
"The city officers are to be COM
mended for adopting a policy
whereby a surplus is created suf-
ficient to meet the need, rather
than by borrowing in order to
accomplish that purpose. If a
greater number of individuals,
school districts, towns, cities, cOun-
ties, states, and even the nation
itself, were to adopt and follow
the same policy, there would
doubtless be much less Of human
misery than now exists"
The order was strongly worded
in many places.
At the time the city decided to
appeal the order of the commits
sion, on the grounds it was "con-
fiscatory" and would force the
municipal plant to operate at a
loss, it was also decided, upon
recommendation of the water
board, to, meter all services in Liv-
ingston. This work is nearly COM
pleted, and will result in con-
siderable saving to users over q
period of a year, officials say.
The plaintiff was represented in
the case by City Attorney David
Fitzgerald and Fred L. Gibson.
It is not known whether the
public service commission will
| ANIMAL