Montana labor news., 1936-10-29

of Judge Angstman on the record
the box score is:
Angstman so per cent
Matthews 81 81 per cent
But, Justice Matthews liberal de-
cisions are not confined solely to
compensation cases.
l recall another decision which is
reported in full in an issue of the
Montana Labor News of Thursday,
April 7th, 1882. 1t is the Ease of An
grove V. Murray Hospital, so Mont.
l0l. The opinion in this ease was
written by Justice Matthews. 1t
holds in the words of R. Lewis
Brown, Attorney for the Engineers
Union in this controversy and pres
ent assistant United States District
Attorney for Montana, THAT one
who pays the one dollar a month to
a hospital (under the present sys-
tenn is entitled to treatment if sick.
1t makes no difference whether the
man is injured on the job or off the
job. He is entitled to treatment and
disqualification for no further cost
than one dollar a month"
The hospitals contention likewise
in the words of Mr.. Brown was:
The hospital has contended for
some years, that under the contract
entered into with the employer, and
under which the employee must pay
$l.00 per month, they were not re-
quired to treat an injury, unless the
injury arose out of and in the course
of the employment, in other words
unless a man was hurt on the job
under such circumstances as would
entitle him to compensation under
the Workmen's Compensation Act of
the State of Montana, they were not
required to treat him under the con-
tract, but that the expense of such
treatment must be borne by him,
and that the payment of $1.0O per
month did not cover such a situa-
ton"
Mr.. Brown concludes:
''The case was not only the first
one v e to be presented to the Su-
preme Court of this state, but was
the first one to be presented under
the Workmen's Compensation Act,
to the Supreme Court of the United
States, or any state in the United
States. 1t therefore establishes the
precedent not only in the State of
Montana, but for the entire United
States, and it is gratifying to know
that for once the precedent has been
established in favor of the working
man, rather than against him"
The decision by Justice Matthews
was heralded by this paper in sew
enty-two point type as tire Magma
Charta of labor with the headline
Labor wins important decision"
followed by a quotation in full of
the text.
In 1920, he saved the primary cleo
ton law to the people at great per-
sonal sacrifice, The legislature
passed an Act in 1919, nominally
amending the primary law; in fact
returning to the convention system.
The new law was highly approved
by the politicians of both parties,
but not favored by the people; in
order to prevent referendum under
the constitutional provisions there
for, except in cases of emergency
where the act is necessary for the
immediate preservation of the public
peace and safety" the Legislature ap-
pended an Emergency clause to
the Act. In spite of this clause a
referendum petition was presented,
but the Secretary of State refused
to act; w%hereupon application was
made for a writ of mandate to com
pei the placing of the question on
the ballot.
1t was freely stated that any
members of the court joining of the
issuance of such a writ would be
defeated in the coming election, yet
Justice Matthews wrote the decision
declaring that a change in the man.
ner of nominating candidates did not
come within the exception as an
emergency and that the mere fiat
of the legislature could not bring
it within that exception. Estate ex
rel Goodman v. Stewart, 81 Mon
tana 144). Justices Hurry and Cooper
joined in the opinion; the remaining
two justices dissented.
Hurry was defeated for nominal