Daily inter mountain., 1900-02-01
cElckR's sOODiE.

to the receipt of 81 100 as bribe to vote
for House Bill 1872, nor does it deny that
the bill was engineered through the legis-
lature by the Anaconda wing Of the
| democratic party. =.
Neither has it the courage to argue in
| mitigation of the bribing of the Flat
| head statesman by it's faction of the
party. the charge that the Clark faction
paid him a good deal more! II
! Still further, utterly oblvious Of its
recent asseveration that the sins of one
man cannot be pleaded in extenuation of
the sins of another-made when it want
ed to show that any corruption discov-
cred in the Anaconda faction did not
! mitted by Clark and hrs friends-the
Standard tries to prove that House Bill
1S2 was all right because the Inter Noun
tain did not record itself in opposition to
the measure when it passed, and that re-
publican members of the legislature
voted for it! y A"
AS a matter of fact, the Inter Mountain
did place itself on record against the
bill. branding it as a corporation meas
ure, as the Standard-which has been
diligently perusing our back numbers of
late-ought to have discovered.
But anent the Geiger proposition. the
question of the merits of the bill, per Sc,
is not in issue.
Were it measure of angelic concep-
ton, on the one hand, or as vicious as the
sediments of tophet, on the other, its
provisions have nothing to do with
Geigers receipt of s1,1oO for voting for it,
Whether the bill was good. bad or in
different, it appears that it's advocates
believed that it was of sufficient value
to justify the payment of $1,10O to Geiger
for his vote.
If the bill was a great crying neces-
sity to the public, and the self-sacrl-
ficing democrats of the Anaconda wing
were so anxious to render the people
service as to pay $1,100 per capita to
legislators in order to secure it's passage,
it only proves that they resemble, to the
extent of their purse-strings, the "other
faction" of their party which is said to
have expended about 81, ,0O0, 900 to secure
$4,000 job.
No, the character of the bill itself is
not in issue in the present controversy.
but the methods employed to secure, it's !
passage are in issue. . /
Doubtless a good many legislators
voted for it In the belief that 1t, was a.
beneficial to the state. b7
But this has nothing to do with the
sworn statement of Geiger that he re-
ceived 81 100 as bribe to vote for the |
bill.
1t Is said that a man was once charged
with stealing sheep, on the testimony of
an eye witness, but was 11onorably ac-
quilted of the charge because he was
able to prove that ten men of unimpeach-
able character didn't see him steal the
sheep!
A score of men of undoubted integrity
may have voted for House Bill 1872, but
that does not do away with the cash re-
ceipts of the immortal Geiger!
On the same principle, good many
honest men may have voted for Clark
for senator, but if it be definitely shown
that one man was paid a cash considera-
tion for his vote, the presumption is the
same as in the Geiger house bill case
that others We're approached in like man.
ner.
House Bill 1872 was the pet of the Ana
conda democracy, designed for a specific
purpose.
1t was crowded through the legisla-
ture, by argument and persuasion. when
such methods were available-by cash.
when other lines of argument were un-
avaling.
No economy was used in exploiting the
alleged merits of the bill, and it appears
that equal generosity was exercised by
the pocketbook behind it.
The actual merits of the bill can be
measured only by it's ultimate effects
upon the interests of the state, and from,
such a standpoint it can be censured or
praised as the case may be.
But the cold, hard fact is now before
the people that the Anaconda wing Of
the democracy. which has been osten-
sibly consecrating itself to the purifica-
tion of Montana politics. stands con-
victed by its own witness as bribe-
giver. tFt "A