Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1899-11-27

StanL ufuDDlnS on tHe part . i tHe ~
| Mountain to induce the Standard to take
back it's solemn declaration on the 9th OF
last January, that the ratio is not
! vital to the restoration of silver, yet how
COT Id it even pretend to be for silver
until it attempted to square itself on
that proposition?
In forcing it to stake water" on this
matter, we havesdone the Standard a real
ser vice for which it is duly unthankful.
But in now declaring that it is for the
ratio of 16 to /, as the Inter Mountain
alu avs has been, the Standard must lasso
stiIl another of it's statements made in
January last before it can go before the
people as an advocate of free coinage.
II stated that the worlds exchanges fix
the relative values of silver and gold.
II this be true. free coinage is an abso-
lutte impossibility.
/ No man will be idiot enough to deny
this.
The Standard at that time took the
position in which every single gold stand
ard man in the country stands. and it
has not as yet changed it's attitude on
tina proposition.
If it regards free coinage as an issue,
it can afford to lose no time in again con-
Tossing that it has lived a lie since the
9th of last January.
L ntil it does 50, it is utterly incompe-
tent to discuss the silver question, and
sho VS. wretchedly bad taste in criticising
President Mckinley or any one else who
believes in the doctrine advocated in its
own columns
repndiate it's former statement as to the
~irrelevancy of the ratio. the Inter Noun
tain has done only half it's duty.
The next step which the Standard must
take will be to again take issue with it.
self, and prove that it was wrong in still
another respect last January.
Yet Why should the Standard blame the
Inter Mountain for criticising statements
that appeared in its olumns yesterday,
or he day before, or a month ago, when
in sheer self-defense it is compelled to
go away back over it's record of nearly
a year to find a statement in it's WI
columns which it is compelled to c%riticise
and disprove?
Another reason assigned by the Stand
ard for not making rejoinder to the argu-
ments and criticisms advanced in these
might advertise the Inter Mountain by
publishing it's name!
When it is remembered tina the only
occasions upon which the Inter Mountain
is llonored with a Mention by the Stand
ard are when it deliberately m]isrepre-
sents the position we have taken on some
debate that the objection urged against
adv ertising this paper is a valid one.
A point in illustration was it's effort to
make its readers believe that we had
defended the presidents financial policy
the day previous, when, in fact, we had
clearly and foreibly stated our objection
like the position taken by the Standard
wrong.
Even now, our contemporary serves
notice on us that unless we attempt to
prove that the presidents financial views
are correct, and that he believes in free
coinage at some ratio, we will invite the
hon rible possibility of being hereafter
ignored by the Standard.
We gods, think of such a fate! -
The Inter Mountain has only to repeat
that President Mckinley and the Stand
| ard, as per it's statement of January 9th,
agree as to their position on the silver
question, in that each is of the opinion
that the ratio is not vital to the proper
use of silver and that values are fixed
by the worlds exchanges.
This does not imply that either the
Standard or the president favors free
coinage at any ratio that does not alter
with the market value.
But the Standard now says it favors
free coinage at a ratio of 16 to 1, and in
sists upon a showing by the Inter Noun
tain as to what ratio the president favors,
as the price of its further notice of this
paper!
The Standard was compelled to give the
| Lie 10 ana of It's own editorial utterancnS