The producers news. [volume] (Plentywood, Mont.) 1918-1937, 1918-06-14

W NC q tuOugnIIui ff0Wn anC
launched into a fearful denunciatior
! OF the Bulletin and its staff. He re.
cited narrowing incidents to show
that the Bulletin was serious of
stacle-to him and his. He outlined
the Doble, self-saerifcing work be-
ing done by the Employers assicia-
ton; ne spoke of his love for the
worker and his eyes filled with tears
crocodile tears; he told how some
labor men who read the Bulletin
had refused to deal with the EN-
ployers' association, how the Bulle-
tin had criticized him and the EN-
ployers' association, and he finally
wound up by saying that any criti-
elsm OF the Employers association
was sedition.
This was a little too much for
even the council, most of whose
members look at life from the en-
ployers' standpoint, and right there
Mr.. Mcintosh began to lose prestige.
Not being a person of fine per-
ceptions, John II. blundered along
amid a CHASTITY silence that would
have unnerved a man less prejudic-
ed and less egotistical. He appar-
emily thought that silence meant
approval and his utterances grew
more and more rabid and he final
~ wound up by instructing the
council as to what action they would
take in the matter.
Again, Mr.. Mcintosh presumed a
little too much on the good nature
OF the long-sugering council, and
when the Bulletin staff finished
cross-examining him, he did not
have a friend in the room, if we
except his co-worker and FELLOWSHIP
ferer, one c. C. Cohen. Mr.. McIn-
tosh failed to prove single state
ment adverse to the Bulletin, made
by him, he left the stand absolute
ly discredited, and about the only
thing he did prove was the fact that
the Bulletin has a very considerable
influence in this state.
Thus did Johns unfounded pre-
JUDGE and his surprising ignorance
prove his undoing.
AS to Mr.. Cohen's part in the
the less said the bet
ter. We are not vindictive, at least
we try not to be-, therefore, we will
not rub it in. Suffice it to say, Mr..
Cohen, attempting to justify his
statements on cross-examination,
was both a pitilful and humorous
sight. We have never had a high
opinion Of Charles ability, but his
performance before the council con-
vinced us that there is a lot of
money behind the Miner.
We enjoyed and appreciated the
of appearing before the
council, and we believe that we all
understand one another better than
We did.
Full and free discussion was in
lulged in. At times speech was so
rec that it was a drug on the
market. All witnesses were accord
d extremely courteous treatment
" the council, some receiving more
than they really de-
erved.
We are of the opinion that the
estimony Of corporation represent
tives carried more weight with the
ouncil than the testimony Of men
opposed to corporate control, but we
ave no complaint to make on that
core, it is entirely natural, in view
f the circumstances, and what we
expected. IF the council is satisfied,
% are we.
We believe, however, that the ac-
ion of the council in regard to B.
{. Wheeler's reappointment is one
hat they will live to regret. We
hink the action unjust and unwar-
anted by the evidence and that the
ouncil did not use the calm and
Judgment one expects
. see used by a judicial body
suite Bulletin.