The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1899-11-08
Free Speech in England.

1T seems that in England there is some
of the same kind of talk about
treason" and traitors" that we
have been and still are RECALLED with in
this country-and it is having just
about as much effect.
England is engaged in war with the
South African republic and the justice
of her action is very seriously ques-
toned by a great many people, includ-
ing a large number of her own. Upon
the continent of Europe the sentiment
appears to be almost solidly against
England, while in the United States
there is substantial division.
But the particular point just now is
the difference of opinion that exists
in England herself among the leading
statesmen of the country. A goodly
number believe that their own govern
ment has been guilty of grave wrong
in it's dealings with the Transvaal, and
not being familiar with the moral or
criminal code which makes it treason
to question the acts of the party in
power, they do not hesitate to speak
their minds. However. they are called
TRAITORS" Just as f1ippantly and with as
little sense, as the term is applied to
the opponents of imperialism in this
country. The London Spectator though,
has a word to say upon this line of
discussion" which may be profitably
considered here in the United States.
The Spectator is a supporter of Eng
lands policy in South Africa, but it
! recognizes the great principle Of free
speech ana the danger that turks in
| it's abridgement. In a late issue it
says:
| I'VE think 1t most unfair, as we'll as
most injudicious, to talk as if the sup
porters of the Beers here were traitors
and enemies of their country. They are
| nothing of the sort. They are foolish
| and misinformed, if you will. but we
admire their courage and conscien-
| tiousness in sticking up for an unpopu-
! lar cause and in daring to declare that
| they think the vast majority of their
countrymen are in the wrong. To try
to browbeat them into acquiescence by
charges of want of patriotism is cruelty
|
| jority are, we are convinced, in the
right, but time may come when the
majority will be in the wrong, and it is
essential to the moral health of the ma
tion that we should most strictly and
most scrupulously preserve the right of
the minority to speak without fear or
favor" .".
If the supporters of Mr. Mckinley S
foreign policy would meet their oppo-
nents in the spirit Of the Spectator,
there would be some decency in their
position, and it would create condi-
tion that would make it possible for
self-respecting men to join with them
in debate upon the merits of the con-
troversy.
! Some of the McKinleyites have de-
INJURED to the idea Of going to England
for precedents in favor of free speech,
insisting that the great civil war of
1861, when the life of the nation hung
trembling in the balance, furnishes the
true standard of comparison.
1t is an unfortunate thing that there
is citizen of the United States who
cannot see that there is absolutely no
parallel between a mere question of
foreign policy, and one which involved
the integrity of the nation at home.
Equally unfortunate is it that it should
be necessary for any citizen of the re-
public popularity believed to be the
freest on earth, to go to any foreign
country, and especially to monarchy,
to find presidents in favor Of free
speech.
The Standard quotes from the Spec
tator, not because it has any doubts
as to what constitutes legitimate dis.
cussion of public questions freed from
any faint Of disloyalty, but merely tc
emphasize the monstrous absurdity OF
President McKinley's supporters at,
tempting by the use of opprobrious cpl
thets to close the mouths of their oppo-
| nents and shut off all adverse criticism
| 80 r.