Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1899-10-07

a war may have on the country in which
he lives-it is not a question of regulating
your sympathies for or against your
country in proportion as its danger may
be great or small. There is no war in
which a nation may engage that does not
involve it's welfare and safety to a great
err or lesser degree, n no man on earth
can foresee the far-reaching effects OF
the war which started with a formal de-
claration against Spain and may end with
the downfall of Aguinaldo. Insnfferable
egotism alone would attempt to measure
patriotism from the standpoint of a fore
sympathize with the enemies of the
country when a conflict is in progress.
~
The Standard does not attempt to
reason out it's right to editorially support
the cause of the Filipino bandit, but
goes to England after what it is pleased
to term precedents to Justify the course
it has seen fit to pursue. 1t has discov-
cred that certain distinguished English
men advocated the cause of the colonies
during the revolutionary war, therefore
why should not distinguished democrats
advocate the cause of Aguinaldo? The
same argument precisely was used by
the copperheads in the civil war, to JUS
tify their advocacy of the cause of Jeffer-
son Davis. In applying English prece-
dents to the present case it is, of course,
necessary to place Aguinaldo in the shoes
of George Washington and his followers
in the attitude of our colonial forefathers.
This involves a question Of parallels, to
which the Standard objects, and it need
not be discussed in this connection.
1t is not a matter Of record that any
distinguished Englishman ever took
extent, to protect the rights of the Amer
lean Indians against the aggressions of
the whites. Their protests during the
revolutionary war were based on the the
DRY that the colonists were of their own
flesh and blood-part and parcel of their
own civilization-and therefore should
not be made the subjects of persecution.
To conuuer the colonists would have
served no purpose in progressive clvlliza-
tion-it would have elevated no race to a
higher level-it would have added moth
ing of commercial benefit to the world.
1t is strange, however, that our demo-
cratic friends, in trying to escape the
appellation of "copperhead,' persist IN
going to England after presidents to JUS
tify their sympathy for A~guinaldo and
his cause. But Of what value are these
precedents when. applied? England per-
mitted freedom Of speech, and men not
in sympathy witt the government Were
permitted to live in freedom. Has any
one ever denied these privileges to the
American copperhead? In all countries
those who oppose the government in times
of war are looked upon as being disloya
in sentiment, and hat opinion prevail:
in the United States today. Were it no
for this sentiment. organized govern
ments could not exist.
In what respect, then, do these glibl,
quoted English preeedents apply to tht
determination of who are and who ar
not copperheads, in the usually accepted
definition of the term? No doubt, it i
unpleasant for the Standard to realiz
the force and propriety of the Int
Mountains contention relative to thos
who are giving their sympathy and en-
couragement to the Filipino cause, blu
it ought to have pursued a course alon
the lines of patriotism that would hav
tplaced it, like Caesars wife-above sus
(picion.
DEMOCRATIC RUSE.