The people's voice. [volume] (Helena, Mont.) 1939-1969, 1945-04-06

iCoS IL 10 CoFfCStcu OF iIHpCdSHcu ny
the legislature? Cannot this court
get right when once 1t goes wrong
without first having its false and
erroneous doctrines repudiated by
the legislative branch of the govern
ment?
In delivering " Hallock, 300 u.
log, 81 L. Ed. 1872, 60 S. CT. 444, 10
A. L. R. 1868, the supreme court o
the United States said: I'VE recog
nize that stare decisis embodies al
important social policy. 1t represent
an element of continuity in law, ant
is rooted in the psychologist need tt
satisfy reasonable expectations. Blu
stare decisis is principle of policy
and not mechanical formula of ad
herence to the latest decision, how
ever recent and questionable, wher
such adherence involves collision will
a prior doctrine more embracing in its
scope, intrinsically sounder, and veri
fled experience.
Nor does want of specific congress
sional regulators of the ST. Louis
Union Trust Co. cases serve as al
| implied instruction by congress to us
not to reconsider, in the light of new
experience, whether those decisions
in conjunction with the Klein case
make for dissonance of doctrine. II
would require very persuasive circum-
stances enveloping congressional ST.
lence to debar this court from re-ex-
amining its own doctrines. To ex-
plain the cause of nonaction by con-
gress when congress itself sheds no
light is to venture into speculative
unrealities. Congress may not
have had its attention so directed for
any number of reasons that may have
moved the Treasury to stay its hand.
But certainly such inaction by the
Treasury can hardly operate as a
controlling administrative practice,
through acquiescence, tantamount to
an estoppel barring re-examination by
this court of distinctions which 1t had
drawn. Various considerations of par
liamentary tactics and strategy might
be suggested as reasons for the mac
ton of the Treasury and of Congress,
but they would only be sufficient to
indicate that we walk on quicksand
when we try to find in the absence
of corrective legislation a controlling
legal principle.
This court, unlike the House of
Lords, has from the beginning rejected
q doctrine of disability at self-correc-
ton. By imputing to congress
a hypothetical recognition of coher-
ence between the Klein and the st.
Louis Union Trust Co. cases, we can
not evade our own responsibility for
reconsidering, in the light of further
experience, the validity of distinctions
which this court has itself created.
Dur problem then is not that of re-
iecting settled statutory construc-
ion. The real problem is whether q
principle shall prevail over its later
Surely we are not
bound by reason or by the considera-
ions that underlie stare decisis to
)ersevere in distinctions taken In the
application of a statute which, on
'urther examination, appear consonant
neither with the purposes of the stat
lite nor with this courts own concep-
ion of it. We therefore reject as I'M
enable the diversities taken in the
st. Louis Union Trust Co. cases in APP
plying the Klein doctrine-untenabl |
because they drastically eat into the
principle which those cases professed
o accept and to which we adhere"
On July 30, 1919, the legislature met
n extraordinary session to consider
matters connected with drouth condi-
ions in this state, and ON request of
he assembly, the governor specially
authorized them to take action with |
eference to the primary laws pur-
uant to which power the Legislature |
nacted Chapter %, Laws of Extra |
session 1919, amending the direct |
Urinary election law initiated by the |
eople in 1912. The law initiated by
he people provided for an open"
Urinary and the act of the legislature
hanged it to a CLOSED" primary.
'hereupon the people called for a
and at the general cleo
ion held November 2, 1920 by popular
ote they rejected the act of the
Extra Session of the legislature (Ch
8, Laws Elk. Session 1919 attempt
lg to amend the original primary
NV laws of 1921, >. 7O4, 1861
Subsequent to the death of Con-
ressman O'Connor the 10Th Legisla-
We Assembly (1945) amended section
II r. G. 1895 (Sec. 521 R. C. 1907
ut it must be remembered that sec
on of the direct primary law pro-
ided that a political party shall not
. allowed to nominate any candidate
/ the manner provided by section 521
the r. G. M 1907" while chapter z
the laws Of 1927 expressly prohibits
very political party which cast go
: more of the total vote cast for rep
in Congress in the district
the next preceding general cleo
on, from nominating any candidate
the manner provided by section
y of the code. This express prohi-
tion at the present time applies to
lie Democratic party and to the Re-
lblican party in this state and the
nendment of section 612 r. G. by an
It which not only fails to repeal but
lis to even refer to section 639 r. G.
ost certainly cannot be said to au-
orize the two major parties to disre-
lrd the express prohibitions of sec
On 639 r. C. (Plan IT'D and to nomi-
tie party candidates under the old
Irty convention method (Plan y pro-
ded for in section 612 r. C. where
lily minor parties casting less than
L Of the total uoto cant FOR rama | II