Fremont journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County [Ohio]) 1853-1866, 1859-09-23

gard TO railroads and other corporations !.
substantially refuted as above; but this !,
, the only approach to a specification in the
correspondence, and as we understand thi.
inputation has been generally and actively
employed in obtaining signatures to the
, letter, il is proper to give il special notice
So far rs we can learn, the only foundation
, (if such it can be callod) for an accusation
J that has occupied so prominent place in
this connection, is the simple fact that pre-.
t vious to Judge Fitch's election, 10 1854, be
T had acted as the attorney of Railroad
/ Co., as all other members oftho Toledo Bar
. have done or would have done If their ser
vices lad been wanted When Judge Fitch
was elected, however, he at once reIinouish
ed all this as we'll as other practice and
we arc authorized to say, that since that
+ time and during his service on the bench
he has held no relation as attorney. IN ana
capacity whatever for any railroad or 9th
or corporation,and thatall reports to the con-
trary are without any foundation in truth.
If any proof exists that Judge Fitch's for
mer action as attorney for q railroad COM
pany, has controlled his course on the bench.
let it be produced without delay; but until
that is done, this general imputaton is en-
titled to very little weight. If once acting
as the attorney of a corporation forever dis
qualifys lawyer for the bench, our choice
for Judges is poor indeed. And if past
employment by such corporation does thus
disqualify members of tho Bar from posi-
tions on the Bench, should it not have the
same effect on others?-and hence, should
it not exclude persons from acting as Jurors
or 'OitnesSeS in our courts9 Certainly, these
signers would not attribute to attorneys any
greater susceptibility to corrupting inhu-
ences, than attaches to other classes of citi-
liens.
Mr.. Kent, without doubt, desires to be
understood as endorsing the positions and
implications referred TO- Without any de-
sign to question that gentleman's right to
pursue such course in the promises as he
may deem proper, we will briefly refer to his
public connexion with the matter. We be-
lieve he attended the judicial Convention at
Fremont, in 1854, as the warm and active
advocate of Judge Fitchs nomination, and.
through his personal acquaintance with dele
gates from other parts of the district, did
more toward effecting that object, than any
other member of the Toledo Bar or of the
Convention. We believe he continued to
support Judge F. until his election, when
he voted for him. At that time Judge
Fitch 1OaS the attorney for a railroad com
pany, but he has not been since
During the recent canvass in the Repub-
lican party for candidate to fill Judge
Ftch's place, Mr.. Kent was the supporter
of E. P. Bassett, Esq, his law partner, for
the nomination. In his behalf he attended
the whole series Of party conventions pre-
ceding the nomination, as well as the one
at which it was made; and in this way
assumed all the obligations to support the
nominee which attach to such action And
when the motion was put to make the NOM
ination unanimous, he indicated no dissent
from the common assent of his associates.
No one, we think, doubts that the choice
thus made was the real and legitmately ex-
pressed will of the Convention.
With this understanding of the case, we
think it is too late for Mr. Kent to make the
separation of the judiciary from politics, the
ground for repudiating the nomination of
Judge Fitch. Had he taken such posi-
tion at the outset, and abstained from all
participation in the effort to mako party
candidate Of another, his case would be
different; but having voluntarily sought to
employ political party to elect his oasn
choice, it is too late, when this effort has
failed, for him to take this new position
Under ordinary circumstances, such acourse
would not be regarded as good faith to-
ward those who went into the Convention
opposing his candidate, but expecting to
support him if nominated.
Again; The main reason given by Mr..
Kent for consentng at this time to run
in opposition to Judge Fitch, is the sup
port which he expects to receive from a
'portion of the p0rty' with which he is
identified in this County, and of "Republi-
cans" elsewhere. How his coming out as
a candidate on the request of portion of
one political "party," after having "alwavs
declined solicitations" to do so heretofore, is |
calculated to aid the election of Judges
without regard to party" is more than we
can see. lie seems entirely to ignore the
members of the Democratic party, whose
support would seem to be indispensable to
relieve his nomination of "partyn charac-
ter. Is it any worse for Judge Fitch to be
brought out exclusively by the "Republi-
cans" than it is for Mr.. KentY So long as
the Democratic party is controlled by the
men who now direct its policy, we see no
hope of electing Judges independent of par
ty politics, and we look upon it as suicidal
for the Republicans to surrender the iudici-
ary to their opponents, in the vain purpose
of accomplishing that object alone.
So far as individuals arc concerned, we
have aimed in the above remarks to avoid
everything that would be personally offens-
We to any one, as we hope to do in any
hing we may hereafter say. In support
ng the election of Judge Fitch, and op-
'osing Mr.. Kent, we are only doing what
We should as readily do, if the positions of
he two individuals were reversed.
Common Band Of brotherhood.