Fergus County argus. [volume] (Lewistown, Mont.) 1886-1946, 1894-07-12
That Ring

over and rehash the argument of our
former article in reply to 'H. c. NJ"
The facts as we stated them still stand
undenied, as calumny and vitupera-
ton are not considered argument.
We desire to go slightly into detail,
and define our position briefly as
possible, answering "H. c. NJ" and
placing the issue, which he so assidu-
ously evades, squarely before the peo-
pie.
We do not know what Satan would
do under the circumstances; wedonot
move in that society and hence can
not speak for him. Wonder il that
code of ethics by which III. C. NJ"
iustifies his wanton attacks belongs
TO that same society. Ii it is no re-
Election on official integrity to bedom-
mated by a ring, then why all these
charges OF corruption and call for re
form? al. c. NJ" purposely misap-
prehends our meaning when in attrib-
uting "the source he makes us intend
to cast odium on the occupation OF
sheepherding. We consider any voca-
| ton that is honest honorable, and rs
we have in the past, as We expect to
in the future, used that end as a
means to earn an honest dollar, we
regard it as a matter OF no reproach
whatever. What we did say and
..los .-o l,,..o 80 an tIa
minds OF the people is the fact that
while III. c. Ms" vocation, which he
has done since coming here, it is very
safe to presume that he is not directly
an interested citizen, and we have 1t
on good authority that all OF his saw,
ings are sent out OF the state, and We
positively know that he has never
paid a dollar of taxes in this county.
His motive may not be the mere graf
iication of II weakness to into
the affairs of others, or the continu-
ance of enjoyment, or anticipation OF
| reward of personal or official emolu-
ments, but to "a man up a tree it
looks like a nauseatiDg pot pourri OF
the whole.
True. very true, we admit at the
head OF our initial article that certain
acts OF ex-county officials savored OF
jobbery, but you make no allusion to
anything but the present, and the
present is what we are dealing with.
In this connection allow me to call
your attention to the great central
idea OF your contemporary. Rustic
brought the case squarely before you
and had you substantiated the
charges of your first article, which We
expected you to do, our argument
would have been as chat before an
Iowa cyclone and you would have
CHILLED the bear"
What We want to know is: Can
charges OF corruption, favoritism Or
misrepresentation OF funds be charged
and proven against any OF the present
county officials? We do not want to
know whether Mr.. Deaton draws So
per day for team hire or not. The
law says that amount of pay is his
and he is entitled to draw it. If he is
not expected to ignore the law rela-
tive to the preservation OF law and
order, why should he be expected to
ignore the law OF compensation
What we want to know is: Are we
being Tammanyized by a gang OF
boodlers? IL o Mr.. Johns and "H.
C. NJ" will not be alone in the most
bitter and relentless fight against ring
rule in the annals of the common
wealth of Montana.
"H. c. NJ" surely is sufficiently ia
miliar with the art OF journalism to
know that when charges of fraud and
corruption are made there are on file
at the Office of publication aflidavits
or available testimony that is con-
elusive, and right here We want to say
that al. c. NJ has not up to date
submitted to the Democrat an iota of
corroborative testimony in support
OF his position.
We do not know whether .'bonding
this and unborn generatlons"is ~iustii-
able or not, but we appeal to Mr..
Deaton, our Democratic sheriff, and
Mr. acGowan, our Democratic county
attorney, both men OF u~ndoubted in
tegrity and universally known to be
in league with no ring, for an explana-
ton OF the facts in the case. "H. c.
NJ" also knows that assessments are
levied upon a schedule formulated by
three taxpayers-men appointed by
the district judge-and of these men
so appointed last winter all are heavy
and were nominated with
out regard to political affiliations by
Democratic Judge. We remember