The Fremont weekly journal. [volume] (Fremont, Sandusky County, Ohio) 1867-1877, 1871-09-29
Why the People should not Vote tor
the Democratic Candidate tor Fro'
scouting Attorney.


tecs society, both individually and
collectively, against encroachment
and injury. Officers are elected to
secure enforcement of those laws,
and to see that complaints under
them are remedied and violators of
them punished. In the adminfstra-
tion of the laws the Prosecuting At
torney becomes an important officer
"a very important officer, and ne
who occupies that position should
himself be above reproaeh for homes
ty, integrity and purity, else, other
wise, instead Of becoming an admin
istrator of the law-one who would |
make the "law a terror to evil doers,"
he deteriorates into an obstructor OF
the law and an alder and abettor OF
those who live in contempt of socie-
ty and prosper in their violations OF
law. There is no middle course in
this matter. The Prosecutor either
arrays himself on the side of honesty
and virtue or on the side ofvice and
immortality.
Legally he can array himself on
ly on the side ofjustice against crime
in any shape, and as the representa-
tive of the majesty of the law, he
must prosecute to conviction all
found in the violation thereof or ar
raigned for its violation. If he fails
to do this, so long as there is prob
ability of conviction, he fails in his
duty in the premises, and saddles
upon the county the costs of the
proceeding. If the man himself
lives in the open violation of law,
and sets at defiance the claims of
decency, it is not a matter of wonder
that the record Of his term of Office
should give evidence of the fact, in
the number of aoHes entered in cases
which should have been prosecuted
to conviction, and which could have
been, had ordinary honesty and COM
potency marked his official career.
AS means of testing the charac-
ter of the present incumbent, and of
presenting to the people strong
reason why they should not again
vote for the Democratic candidate
for Prosecuting Attorney, we give
below lisit of cases in which that
able iurist and sound lawyer found it
convenient to enter noIIies, and which
he dismissed at the public cost
when theevidence would have con-
victed. Here they are:
State VS. George Randolph, rob-
berry. Nollied.
State VS. Henry Homan, receiving
stolen horse. Nollted.
State VS. John Smith, house break
ing. NoUied.
State VS. John Smith, grand lar
ceny. sNoJgied.
State VS. Chas. and Ellen Freund,
keeping brothel. Nollied.
State VS. James Daugherty, same
charge. NoIlied.
State VS. Chas. Bash, same charge.
NoUied.
State VS. John Reed and VIM.
Williams, petit larceny. Nollied.
State vs. John Reed and VIM.
Williams, burglary and larceny.
NoUied.
State VS. James Daugherty, keep
ing gambling house. Nollied.
State VS. Chas. Eddy, petit larceny.
NoHied.
State VS. Roger Enright, perjury.
Nozlted.
State VS. James Covert, grand lar
ceny. NoUted.
State VS. David Nagle, perjury.
NoUied.
State VS. John R. Hine, perjury.
Nollied.
State VS. Anna E. Hill, infanticide,
released on straw bail.
There, people of Sandusky county,
what do you think of that for rec
ord of the one whom two years ago
you chose to represent the majesty
of the county, to see that the laws
we're enforced, criminals convicted,
and offenders punished? 1t is pos
sible that in all these cases no evi-
dence could be obtained upon which
to convict, although the evidence
had been sufficient to justify the
Grand Jury in finding true bills of
Indictment? Look at the character
of these cases,-among the worst
known to our laws and some of them
positively the worst for the morals
of community, leading as they dc
to greater depths of vice and de-
pravity. Yet all aoHied. Not even
an attempt made at prosecution. Is
this the character you desire in an
administrator Of the law2 Is this
what you elected him for? We think
not. Then why has he disregarded |
your wishes, and enabled evil doers
and persons charged with crime to
laugh at our laws and exult in their
security from prosecution? All,
Why?
When men set at defiance the
obligations they assume when induc-
ted into Office, it is because some
more powerful or potent influence is
exerted upon them than their sense
of duty. And it is averred that in
many of the cases cited above, it
paid the Prosecutor better not to
prosecute than to prosecute. That
there was a greater inducement held
out to him to let these persons
with crimes go scot free
community, than there was
to have had them convicted. Not
only is this charge made in general