Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1897-04-16
GABY TO THE RESCUE
SHIELDS THE STANDARD FROM
ITS lMPLACABLE FOES.
He Bares His Breast In Defense OF
Righteous Cause-In Shaking
Up the Scrtbes He Incidentally
Treads Upon HIS AccidenCy's
GOrnS.

tSntcouS tauSe-hn SnaNIhS
Up the Scribes He Incidentally
Treads Upon His Accidency's
COrms.
The contemporaries oi Horace Gree
ley, failing to answer his arguments,
We're wont To- dcnOuncc his vigorous
English, as indecent and vulgar. To
the calumnics of his dctractur>, he
quietly replied, that he called Il spade
4 spade. Some one. apin9 the elder
Bennett, under the caption Bad
journalism has squealcL ~ though
it WAS the pig itself, while prt>uming
to lecture the STANDARD on ethics.
The personnel OF the writer is imma-
terial to the burning shame of Olym-
pia, the article has been indorsed by
the Palddium and the Olympian.
The executive has put Scobey and
Rathbun III the same little bed and
they now snoozc quietly together, two
good little cuckoos, and chirp in uni
son, the STANDARD is mediocre in
kind and degraded in journalism"
Now if it is commonplace, when did
the Palladium scintillatc and how
often has the Oiympian transgressed
the proprictic> i'll its efforts to be vul-
gar, if it failed to be funny. Its twin
was quiet then. They only rise to de-
ccncy occasionally, when argument
and invectivc fails.
Forgetting that each is edited by Il
lawyer, they invoke to their aid and
spit out such choice cpithetS ~ shy
stcr," "quack," hypocritc," " bush
whackcr' and "pirate.' Now brothers
Rathbun ahd Scobey will you point
out wherein Editor Murphy, or his pa
per, resembles either shyster, a
quack, hypocrite, a bushwhacker or
a pirate?
The application of the vile names
being inopportune and unmerited,
have you not dug pit for yourselves
and been pandcring to the low and
unculturcd"? You admit that the
STANDARD had "a standing among
intelligent and Christian people," but
say that it is degraded" by its stric-
lures on the veto, and that it expected
to drag along its respectable associ-
ates," referring to yourselves. After
the veto, your first issues, gave promise
that you would not need to be dragged
but change came over the spirit of
your dreams, and from being cham
ions of Il drastic "capitol bill" guaran-
teeing interest at 5 per cent. on $780,
600, you now say of mild bill which
guarantees only 4 per cent. per an
mum on $250,OO0, "There is no claim
that it (the latter was II wise and jul
dicious public measure; there is no
effort to show that the burden of it
could be borne by an already over
burdened treasury" Was it necessary
to prove that it would be wise and ju-
dicious to proceed with work on the
capitol, and does it require argument
to show that the State could afford to
,expend ten Thousand dollars per year
in the erection of a building when you
had demonstrated that it should pay
twenty-five thousand dollars each
year?
But your words now imply more !;
and you in effect say that the cal
ready overburdencd treasury" cannot
bear the burden of paying ten thou
sand dollars per annum to secure the
erection of six hundred thousand
dollar building, and that tho measure
was injudicious and unwise. When
you declare that while the people of
this city do not endorse 1.-THE reasons
assigned by the Governor for vetoing
the BILL" you more than imply that
there were good and sufficient reasons
for vetoing the bill.
/ submit that you are charging the
executive with very grave and fool
ish crime. You now presume that he
had before him an unwise and extrav-
agant measure, which he should have
vetoed, and that reasons which would
have been satisfactory to the people OF
Olympia could have been given by the
Governor, but that i'll his veto message
he was either fool or liar.
AS those close to the throne differ as
to the true inwardness OF the veto, you,
Oiympian and Palladium, are only ex-
plicit in denouncing the extravaganza
of the legislature in appropriating the
ten thousand dollars while your CO.
apologist, the Capital, says that the
contractor was person non gratia
with the Governor. Can you not pre-
vail upon his majesty to revise the
reasons given for the veto, and then
let the people of Washington judge
between those who criticise and those
who fawn upon the executive?
The Olynlpidn, Palladium and Cap
ital claim to be journalists par ercel-
lcnce. Have they not dealt in innu-
endo and suggestion long enough?
Will they, or either of them, point out
one line in the capitol bill" that does
not merit approval?
In his veto, the Governor says: at
forces the State to accept the plans
formerly adopted" Who is the State?
Was it formerly John ii. McGraw?
Is it now John Il. Rogers? If the
State adopted the plans, how is it
forced to do anything now?
I'd. "The State capital fund never
had an existence" Ordinarily the
State consists of legislative, executive
and judicial departments, and little
more monkeying with the courts will
convince even Governor Rogers that
the opinions of the bench are of
weight; and when, through despoiling
the tide land fund, what fund will be
in existence to pay official salaries and
what existence has the fund which is
now pledged years in advance to pay
warrants? Governor, your high office
should not be filled by harlequin.
81. at confirms award
to a certain contractor" You do not
attempt to show the injustice OF this
provision. OF course it is IL sensitive
chord that was Jared; but can you
not rise to your station and forget
personalities, with the power to SUPER