Belmont chronicle. [volume] (St. Clairsville, Ohio) 1855-1973, 1874-10-01
The Democratic Candidate for
Supreme Judge a Common
Drunkard.
What His Home Paper Says.

.-Thre weeks ago the Telegraph said
Of Judge Gilmore, the Democratic can
didate for seat on the Supreme Bench
of Ohio: that he was unlettered; igno-
rant in his chosen professions; that he
was openly charged by member OF
the Butler County Bar with mutilatlng
court record, and by so doing cheated
the Penitentiary of a man who had
plundered the Butler County Treasury,
and last, though by no means least,
that he was druukard.
There is noquestion that Gilmore did
mutilate court record. The record
itself is evidence against him. No 9TH
er Judge in Ohio ever before corrected
SQUIRT journal by drawing his pen
through a part of that journal six
months or more after the journal had
been closed and signed by the Judge
Oqinions differ as to the intent of the
Judge in so mutilatsng the record
There are those who claimed, and still
claim, that hs intended by the act to
shield the defaulting treasurer OF But
Ter County from justice; Others, like
M!llikin and Hume, find legal warrant
for the act. Matter of Opinian as it is,
the respectable portion of the Butler
County bar, the great mass of the peo-
pie of Butler County then and now de-
nounced the act as corrupt.
And whether Judge Gilmore is an
unlettered man opinions may differ
His written opinions are constructed in
defiance of the rules of gram mar; in his
conversations he habitually uses the
past principle when he should use the
20 had n n.
guish the difference between an adjec-
tive and an adverb.
That he is ignorant or worse in his
profession the records of the District
Caurt and the actinn of the Butler and
Montgomery county bars attest. At a
recent District Court over One-half Oi
his decisions made below, were revers-
ed; the Montgomery Couoty bar prefer
to continue their cases to trying them
before him; the Butler County bar some
little time since petitioned Gilmore to
exchange with Judge Elliott, and so
let Elliott hold Court here.
That he is the victim of his appetite
what we have heretofore said, and the
articles we reproduce from the pen of
Mr.. Maginnis and "Pre5le Demo-
GRAFT" unfortunately, for Judge Gill
more, leave no room for denial.
But the most serious charge, every
thing considered, made against Judge
Gilmore is that he is the victim of an
uncontrolled and uncomfortable appe-
tite for drink. Unfortunately for Judge
Gilmore his debauches have been as
frequent as they have been notorious,
and his partisans however much they
might desire to deny the charge, have
not the hardihood to deny facts as ad-
mitted and as we'll known as that the
sun shines. Else why did not Hume
and Millikin defend him against this
charge when they defended him against
the charge of mutileting the Lindley
record? Why is the Maginnis letter,
and the communication of a ''Preble
Democrat" permitted to stand unchal-
lenged and undenied if Gilmore is a
man? The charge cannot be
denied. The shameful stories cf his
welding to debasing appetite as told
in another place in this paper to-day is
too true. His friends hang their heads
with shame, aud are dumbwhen men,
with Gilmore faiiings;
ask whether these charges are true
Hamilton ISLe0r0Dh.