The Dalles daily chronicle. [volume] (The Dalles, Or.) 1890-1948, 1897-11-11
UNTO ITSELF 4 LAW.

the Oregonian yesterday, and "with
The DaIles CHRONICLE few words
more" This. being the time of year
for the dead leaves to rustic, we are
glad to note that those of the Orego-
nian act on natural principles. The
trouble with our big contemporary is
that it has gotten upon so lofty a
pinnacle that it, like the laws of the
Medes and Persians, cannot be read
or understood of mortals. Having
lived and matured surrounded by in
consistencies of its own creation, it
fails to realize that they are neon
slstent, but they are the single stand
ard by which it measures all things.
1t prates of Inconsistency and yirtu-
ally says, "An inconsistency is a
thing inconsistent; but if I create an
inconsistency, it is not inconsistent
to me, but plain as pike-staff." /"
Dogberry himself would be shamed
into admiration of such wonderful
premises and such clear and over
whelming conclusions.
Let US see. The Oregonian says,
and quotes from itself to prove it,
that in 1890 the free silver plank was
Inserted IN the state platform by A.
III. Tanner in order to aid Mitchell,
and that few members of the conven-
ton knew it, and those few preferred
not raise disturbance about it. The
Oregonian called attention to it, said
it was wrong principle, but sup
ported the ticket. 1t did the same
thing in 1892, and in 1894 the Ore
gonian editor admits having assisted
IN making the state platform, which
reafirmed the national platform of
1892, which platform, it asserts, was,
tson any fair Interpretation, gold
standard platform. Was it? If SO,
why should it need any interpreta-
ticn, fair or otherwise? If it was,
why was it not written in that clear
and plain style pervading the Orego-
mans editorial comments, which it
quotes? Why was it not made clear
and distinct so that it needed no in
depreciation? The fact is, the plat
form, like most recent platforms, was
a juggling one, made so that 1t meant
all things to all men. If it was so
constructed as to require interpre-
tation, why had not Senator Mitchell,
Congressman Hermann and Ellis as
much right to interpret for them
selves as the Oregonian for itself
and everybody else? The editor of
the Oregonian assisted in making
this inconsistent platform, ,hence,as we
have said, it is not inconsisent-to
him.
Again, he supported the tickets in
1890, 1892, 1894 and 1896, yet none
of them were single-standard plat
forms. He asserted the principles
wrong, at times, but he submitted to
the viii of the majority and support
ed the tickets. We do not inquire
into his motive for doing so, but state
the fact. Putting him in the most
unfavorable light, did Senator Mitch
ell do more than this when he said
he stood squarely on the national
platform made at st. Louis? Does
Ellis more than this when he asserts
that he will stand by that same plat.
forme Most assuredly not.
The .Oregonlan arrogates to itself
the right to do all the thinking for
everybody and hes over-taxed its
thinker. This is why the dead leaves
rustic around the Oregonlan Office,
and this is perhaps why it takes THE
CHRONICLE to task for IFS position.
Our big contemporary thinks the
CHRONICLE editor content ',to support
that which is false against that which
is true under leadership congenial to