The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-11-26
The Inter Mountain in Debate.

cannot nave ralleQ TO nCle the Ia
y tense anxiety Of that newspaper
recently for a discussion Of public ques-
tons between itself and the Standard.
In its colossal egotism our Butte con-
temporary actually assumed that pub
lie questions" were not discussed by the
Standard unless the Inter Mountain
we're specially mentioned and made n
party to the discussion. The Standard
had it's reasons, and good ones, for not
regarding such a. discussion with favor
Upon the question of Mr.. McKinley's
foreign policy that paper had
extensively assumed the entire case
by denouncing everybody and every
newspaper opposed to it as a traitor"
In dealing with other questions, 1t
studiously avoided the substance of
every issue presented, Selling upon col
lateral, incidental and unimportant ex-
pressions and making them the text for
whole columns of fine spun and far
fetched sophistry. On one occasion, in
an editorial column and a half long, it
accused the Standard Of misrepresent-
ing Dewey, but neither in that article
nor the one which followed on the same
theme, was there a single specification.
The Standard saw that a discussion
upon such lines would be utterly with
out value to anyone, unless to the Inter
Mountain through the advertising it
would receive.
Finally. however, that publication di-
rectly charged the Standard with false
hood in stating that Agulnaldo and the
Fillpinos desired independence under
American protection. we promptly
quoted from the official records, show
ing that such was their expressed de-
sire. In this same connection the Inter
Mountain also accused us OF hedging On
the Philippine question, and the silver
question as well-the latter by reason
Of an editorial utterance many months
ago concerning the ratio. AS the STAN
dard is in no sense a national issue,
while President Mckinley is, we DEEM
ed 1T proper to point out the inconsis-
tency of the Inter Mountain in attack
ing the Standard SO savagely upon the
score of an imaginary hedging" while
1T was in a state of exalted enthusiasm
over a president who had hedged or
stultified himself upon every public
question that he had ever been called
upon to face, and worst of all, upon the
silver question. which the Inter Noun
tain processes to hold so dear.
To this the response was mass of
tommyrot about putting ourselves in
Mckinley's class, and an attempt at
cheap wit in the form of a suggestion
that we take some one of our size"
These We're accompanied by a demand
fora bill of particulars, which we at once
furnished, combining it purposely to Nc
Kinley's record upon the silver ques-
ton, because the Inter Mountain had
been claiming in season and out that
this was the most important Of all pub
lie Issues. The Inter Mountain has not
even pretended to meet a single one of
| our specifications except by declaring
that the Standards remarks about the
ratio made its position substantially
the same as that of Mckinley.
Aside from the eact that there was
not and is not even the faintesit shad-
| ow of a foundation for such state
ment, in this the Inter Mountain did
| the very thing with which it had charg-
ed the Standard 1t attempted to prove
no, it did not attempt to prove, it
simply declared that the views Of the
| president and those of the Standard
were the same upon the money ques-
| ton, thus putting them in the same
| class upon that ISSUE ut least.
When the Inter Mountain instituted
| this comparison between the president
| and the Standard it is reasonable to as
, sumo that 1t had some object in view.
| 1t is hardly to be believed that the
| editor was simply throwing words to-
| gether for the purpose of filling in
space. Obviously the Inter Mountain
intended one of two things: Either tc
argue in favor of Mckinley by show
ing that he was no worse than the
Standard, or to argue against the Stan
dard by showing that it was just as
bad as Mckinley. 1t is utterly impossi'
bit to avoid one or the other Of these
conclusions-unless we are to assume
that the Inter Mountain did not NEAR
anything.
Commenting upon this anomaly in thu
way of an argument, the Standard SAID
that the Inter Mountain actually seek
to defend the president of the Unite;
States by declaring that his position il
substantially the same as that OF tn
Standard" That was an absolutely fai
comment, for it is as plain as light tina
the Inter Mountain had the defense o
the president in view. But note it
chaste and dignified rejoinder: Com
ment upon the style of journalism tina
leads to such deliberate, cold-bloode
Misrepresentation as the foregoing i
unnecessary. 1t speaks for itself as a
absolute and Wilful distortion of tn
opinions Of this paper on question q
great public concern"
And again the Inter Mountain utterl
fails to specify any misrepresentation
whatever. 1t quotes from itself as TO
lows: "If the Standard mistakes. the
| in,