Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1900-01-29
LIVES OF JUDICIAL DEFAMATION.

LINES or JUDICIAL DEFAMATION.
Election, the Anaconda Standard this
morning ventures upon a two-column de-
tense of it's judicial methods, referred to
in the Inter Mountain Of Saturday.
Boiled down, it's justification consists of
nothing more substantial than the
"you're another arguments favorite
resort of our contemporary, when in
trouble with the analytical department
of it's mental machinery. In short, it
seeks to justify it's course in trying the
Clark case in it's columns-instead of
permitting the senate committee to
pursue it's work of investigation in it's
W way-by alleging that the Inter
Mountain accused Mr.. Clark of wrong
doing in 1893.
The Standard overlooks the important
fact that Mr.. Clark's relations to the
public in the senatorial contest of that
year were essentially different than they
are today. In 1893 he was the choice of
the democratic legislative caucus for
senator, and therefore the official repre-
sentative of that political party before
the joint assembly. The democratic
party, as such, was responsible for the
course be pursued. and every criticism
directed against Mr.. Clark applied to the
political organization which had given
him it's official endorsement for the high
office to which he aspired. It is worthy
of note that this official endorsement was
not withdrawn from Mr.. CLARK, when he
was accused of the improper use of
money, but was allowed to stand
throughout the session, thus affirming
the fact that his party had shouldered
the responsibility for the conduct of it's
candidate. Thus, every attack upon the
senatorial candidate of the democracy
became an attack upon the party in gen.
eral, fixing upon his hackers joint re-
sponsibility for the legislative scandals
of that year.
From that standpoint, the accusations
made by the Inter Mountain We're justi-
fable. and did not involve the trying of
an individual charged with crime when
a duly constituted tribunal had his case
in hand The democratic party itself
was the official sponsor for Mr.. Clark
in 1898, and could not, in the nature of
things, be segregated from the person.
ality of the man whose course of pro-
cedure it sustained to the end of the ses-
sion. The seven or eight democrats who
refused to be a party to the legislative
caucus Of that year, and thereby pre-
vented the election of Mr.. Clark, oc>
cupied the attitude of boilers, with the
specific mission in view of executing the
demands of a private desire for evenge.
The object of those boilers from the
democratic party was not a political one.
Had it been of that character they would
have laid their grievances before the
legislative caucus of their party, in the
usual way, and abided by the results.
But they chose to work along independ-
ent lines-not to elect a democrat to
office, but to prevent the election of a
democrat who received the endorsement
of his party caucus, but who was person
ally Objectionable to the accredited
leader of the Anaconda faction of the
democracy. They were the guerrillas OF
the joint assembly, the only redeeming
feature Of their conduct being that II
contributed to the political hopes of the
republican party-just as an insurrection
among the Beers in the Transvaal would
assist the British. however unjust and
discreditable it might be to the Beers.
-
But aside from the accusations made
by the Inter Mountain against the demo-
cratic party in 1898, through references
to the conduct of the man who had beer
selected as its official representative in
h legislative contest. the Anaconda fac.
tion-claiming for itself all manner Of
purity-absolutely refused to sustain the
charges made by it's own official repre-.
sentative on the floor of the joint as.
sembly. by bringing an action to prop.
srly punish Mr.. Clark for his alleged In.