Montana labor news., 1938-10-20
Is THAT THE LAW!
CONTINUED from Page 3,

proposed motion to adjourn because
Of pressure" which was being
exerted. If it were not for this fact
the state supreme court would not
have been brought into the case.
At the end of the go days a mo-
ton to adjourn sine die was made
and as was expected, was voted
down. Following this the doors
were locked and the mill was start
ed to grind through the special legis-
lation.
Appeal was then made to the SUI
preme court by Majority Leader
Sam Spiegel for an injunction
against H. D. Rolph, speaker of the
House, and others to restrain. them
from continuing the transaction of
legislative business after the expira-
ton of the 60-day limit provided for
in the Constitution of Montana I'M
der Article 5, Sections 5 and 6. These
sections are very clear as to the
starting date of the legislative SEES
sion, the number of days and even
the length of a day is given in the
Montana laws, as follows: :" . The
legislative assembly shall meet at
II noon of the first Monday in Jan
uary Immediately following the
general election. i" C. No SEES
sion of the legislative assembly after
the first shall exceed 60 days"
A day is defined as :" a period of
time between any midnight and the
midnight following. 1t is clear
ly a day of "a hours and no more.
For the supreme court action on
this appeal for injunction the reader
is referred to page 618, volume 104
of the Montana Records where the
case is classed as a Memorandum
Decision or a Decision rendered
without extended opinion" a con-
venient device in the face of the
above facts and the courts decision.
The writ of injunction sought by
Spiegel was denied and the pro-
ceedings wer ordered dismissed.
Judges Stewart, Anderson and Nor
ris c%oncurred; Justice Angstman did
not agree with the order in its en-
tirety," and Chief Justice Sands,
who has since died, dissented. Sands
and Angstman's were the only COM
ment made by the court. Chief
Justice Sands said: "In view of the
fact that service was not made on
the journal clerk I do not see how
we can make any order to direct
them; l, however, object to the
Justification of the official House
records and assent to the opinion
on account of the lack of jurisdiction
of the recording officers"
To summarize the significance of
the supreme court decision: The
Constitution of Montana has a posi-
tive inhibition against extending the
legislative session over go days. On
this point the court did not touch.
The case was decided on the techni-
cal grounds that the journal officers
were not served with papers. (The
doors were locked after the motion
to adjourn.)
Strong arm, Hitler-like methods
were used to prevent the serving Of
papers upon the people mentioned
as defendants and the case was de-
cided upon the improper serving of
the papers.
Yet the defendants, Rolph and
others, were represented in court
by their attorneys, Eddie Booth,
counsel of the State Highway Com
mission, T. B. Weir, and Mr.. Gum
of the firm of Gum, Rasch and Hall,
Northern Pacific retainers. These
men could defend themselves in
court but they could not be instruct
ed by the court because they were
not officially notified of the court
actionl
This is one small example of the
legal chicanery which has charac-
terized our Montana supreme court
through the years. 1t is law at its
lowest, though perfectly legal, ebb.
The remedy is the replacing of
these men who hide behind the form
and letter of the law with men who
remember their obligations of hon
esty and integrity.
The forms of law have always
been the graves of buried liberties.
1t is up to the citizens of this state
to say what type of men they wish
on the Montana supreme court
bench. If they are in accord with
the American ideals of life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness" they
will surely remove Associate Justices
Stewart and Anderson from the
state supreme court bench.
A necessity is something We can