Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1900-01-31
cEfCER AND THE HOUSE BILL.

CEICER AND n HOUSE BILL.
AS has been expected by impartial and
independent o~n-lookers, the prosecution
in the Clark case was unable to conclude
the work of administering a black eye
to the defendant without tarring itsel1
with the same stick. theoretically. TINS
was done through the testimony of such
blooming idiots as Cason and Hewitt,
but the direct evidence is furnished by
Senator Geiger of the now famous balfl-
wick of Flathead. That witness, con-
trary to the expectations of the prosecu-
ton which placed him on the stand made
the following explanation, in part. as to
why he was apparently rolling in wealth
at the close of the legislative session:
I found a package in my room contain.
ing 81. 100. 1t was at the time that Cor
poration Bill 1872 was pending. l took the
money and used it and never said a word
about it.
This is a direct statement by the wit
ness. under oath, that he was bribed by
the men who were engineering House Bill
1872 through the Legislature. That bill was
one of the greatest Importance to cor
porations, and upon it's passage depended
the carrying out of certain gigantic bust
ness schemes they had in view in this
s~tate-plans which would, to a large de-
gree, place the commonwealth at their
mercy. Common report, at the time.
charged the Anaconda democracy with
the expenditure of large sums of none
to carry this measure through, and no
doubt the scandal would I've assumed
gigantic proportions had not the Ana
conda Standard succeeded in DETECTING
public attention from it by shrewdly
footing it's horn with ever increasing
vigor over the Clark case.
\ scandal involving the possible ex-
penditure of from $4,000 to $4,000 stood
very little show as against a scandal
which dealt with millions, especially
when the glare Of the latter afforded an
excellent observation of the former,
with the pious and high-minded Stand
ard manipulating the wires. An electric
light will make a candl light cast a
shadow. On the same principle, the
placing of the Clark expenditure at a
much higher figure than that for House
Bill 1872, threw the latter into the back
ground for future use.
The Standard is authority for the
statement that Clark paid $4,000 for
votes, without reference to their quality,
while Geiger's testimony shows that the
Anaconda democracy only paid $1,10O fol
votes. On the theory that there are de-
grees in crime, it will no doubt be argued
that by comparison with the illegal ex-
penditure of $4,000 for a vote, the giving
of only 81 ,10O amounts to a virtue. The
Standard, however, has announced tina,
the sins of one ma does not wipe ava,
the sins of another, and to this PROPOSE
tion the Inter Mountain has unhesi
tatingly assented. Hence, the STANDARD
is barred from making that plea.
AS that question is settled, it neces
sarily follows that If Geiger re
ceived $4,000 from Clark. as GU,
contemporary has repeatedly declared
and 81, 100 from the corporation agents.
as he himself swears-the expulsion q
Clark from the senate will not prove tn
immaculate purity of the "other faction
of the democratic party. To the indie
pendent observer it would Indicate onl
that instead of all the sins of the democ
racy having been burnt and purge
away it would leave a balance of 81 Il
per capita to be accounted for, and plac
the Anaconda wing of the democracy o
trial before the Montana public.
In it's entirety. Senator Geiger's test
mony confirms the position that has bee
taken by the Inter Mountain from til
outset. namely, that both wings of IL
democracy should be probed to the linn
by the senate committee. Neither or
has a cinch on paradise. on the GROUND
of purity, and both are likely to take
header in the other direction when IL
good people of Montana have anoth,
chance to express themselves throue
the ballot box.