The producers news. [volume] (Plentywood, Mont.) 1918-1937, 1926-08-27
Hamilton Says McElrOy's
Charges Against Wheeler
Are Based on Assumptions

FOur-Mile Ranch
Musselshell, Mont, Aug. II. 1926.
Editor, Producers News,
Dear Sir:
l note by the issue of the 18th that
Mr.. McElroy has had time to get his
material in chape to launch a few
more charges at B. K. Wheeler, and
as a reply is evidently expected, l
will take my Underwood in hand to
make it. 1t will be manifestly i'm
possible for me to answer all the
charges made by Mr.. McElrOy in the
space which l desire to consume, as
one person can make more charges In
one paragraph than, three can answer
in a column, so l will content myself
fer the present by answering the
principal accusations.
Mr.. McElroy promised some llum-
mating disclosures in his article and
possibly it is due to my lack of per
ception that I am as much in the dark
as ever. 1t may be some cOnsOla-
ticn to Mr.. McElroy to know that
last week a flash of lightning struck
me on the jaw--AND BOUNCED
OFF-which may explain why have
not been squelched by his literary
thunderbolts.
Mr.. McElroy makes out a very
good case indeed against Wheeler,
except for one fatal defect-it is
built on assumption entirely. Now
assumptions are not considered in a
court of law as conclusive evidence
of the guilt of the accused, nor should
they be Sc held at the bar of public
opinion where Wheeler is now being
tried.
AS to the assumption that Wheel
er has sold out because the copper
press is supporting him, is it not as
logical to assume that the copper
press, knowing of his sarcastic state
ment quoted by Mr.. McElroy, sup
ported him in the hope that the pub
lie would believe he had sold out ? Is
it not also possible that the said
press, realizing Wheeler's strength as
a potential candidate for Governor
would prefer to see him in the SEN
ate rather than in the governors
chair where he might do them more
harm? / admit that both of these
differences are assumptions, but /
maintain that they are as credible as
Lllctb VI NIL N1CEAlIONs
Mr. McElroy states that the said
press never retracted their charges
made against Wheeler in 1920. Can
he cite an instance where the copper
press ever retracted a charge made
in a political campaign.
He states that it is automatic that
no man ever went to the Senate
from this state without the consent
of the A. C. M.
If he will delve deeper into past
political history he will find that
Wheeler's first battle with the A. c.
M. was. over the election of T. j
Walsh at time when Senators were
elected by the legislature. Wheeler
was then a member of the Legislature
and the Anaconda was then opposing
Walsh. Walsh went to the senate
and his election was mainly due tt
Wheeler's efforts in his behalf. Sc
much for Mr.. McElroy's axiom.
He states that Wheeler attacked
Daugherty and "some Independent oil
operators" assuming that by attack
ing the Independents, Wheeler was
| aiding the. Rockefeller interests, who
control the Anaconda" Both the
statement andSthe assumption are in
correct, as Wheeler was not involved
in the Teapot Dome investigation
and when the charge was made thai
Wheeler had used his influence to Sc.
cure permits for oil drilling on gov
eminent land, it was Campbell, &
small independent operator whom he
was accused of aiding, not the Rookie
/ Teller family.
He asks, "did he pry into the air
plane and shipping deals of John D
Ryan, ETC." In reply l will saw thai
If l remember correctly, Wheeler haC
his time pretty we'll occupied will
the Daugherty investigation and tn,
counter attack upon himself, and tina
to demand that enc person, ever
though that person be Wheeler, tax,
an active part in Investigating al
the steals perpetrated upon the gov
eminent during the war is assignins
him pretty large contract. If M
memory serves me, Robert M. LaFol
lette did not "pry into" all thes,
steals. Does that prove that LaFol
lette was a tool of the A. C. M.
He asks me to use my microscop,
to discover where Wheeler ever sal,
an injurious word against the Ana
conda. With all due regard for MI
McElroy's opinion, I believe I offer
ed him the use of my microscope OF
a previous occasion to discover wher
Wheeler had voted in the interest O
the common people, and I believ
that all reasonable progressives vii
admit that his votes in those instan
ces were in the interest of the com
mon people, but alas! Mr.. McElro,
declined my offer. At present / hav
no means of knowing that the mi
croscope would be more acceptable i
this instance. Granting, howevere 70
the sake Of argument, that Wheele
has not thoroughly cussed the Ana
conda since going to the senate, doe
that prove that he is an ACM tool
Is 1t not possible to wage a fight wit
a corporation without making a bi
noise about it? Is it not even prof.
able that more successful fgI
Knight be thus carried on.
but the record is not lacking i
instances where Wheeler attacke
persons and interests which menace
the profits of the people who Ow
the Anaconda"
Mr.. McElroy will have to be MOI
specific in his charges if he expect
a fair-minded person to accept tn
statement.
He charges that Wheeler consorte
with Eddie Booth. I believe that
early days a person yclept Jesus Wa
accused of consorting with "publicar
and sinners" / am not certain tn:
Booth is a publican but I presun