The Wichita city eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1872-1883, 1882-10-19
WALL. DALE AND TIE LANE CASE.

The Democrats, in their extreme anxiety
to beat Wall, are employing every means, fair
or foul, to heap odium upon him and to in
duce Republicans TO scratch his name. Hav-
ing failed in finding any thing in his lille as a
boy or man, disreputable, they seek TO vica-
riously sink him, to heap upon him the sup
posed mistakes and reputed failures OF 9th
ers. Such a warfare is most contemplate.
The last, the most flimsy and inexcusable
charge, and one which has been insidiously
spread and urged, is that he is the law part
ner of W. E. Stanley who was retained with
Sluss and Campbell in the Lane case. The
fact that T. B. Wall had nothing more to do
with the case than did Joseph d. Houston,
who is Campbell's partner, or Charles Hat
ton, who is Sluss' partner, weighs nothing
with the crowd who are using such question
able means to crowd down man, and who
must be beat only that the Democratic party
may boast the filling of single Office. 1t is
sought to make Wall the scape-goat Of a
wave of public indignation, when many of
them know that all three of the partners,
Wall, Houston and Hatton, were with the
majority of the community, against Lane.
Shame on the men or the party that would
seek to win a victory by beating man by
such a miserable course.
David NJ. Dale, the present county attorney
of Sedgwick county, Kansas, is just as blam-
able as W. f. Stanley for a dereliction of du-
ty, If there was any dereiction, and the eff
forts of his friends to fasten any stigma upon
Wall, who from first to last had no more to
do with the case than man who never heard
of it, is simply mean political trick, un-
worthy moments consideration by sound
minded men. In the name of common fair
ness, where was ID. NJ. Dale, the prosecuting
attorney for the county for the last three
terms Of court, when this very case was be-
ing thrown out? If Stanley was honestly
mistaken in believing that the case would
not stand, and only result in throwing the
county into big bin of costs, why didn't
Dale, as an officer Of the court, help Judge
Fisher perfect the papers when asked to do
SO: or, why, knowing all the facts known to
Stanley, did he not commence criminal
in the name Of the county and
the people: If Wall, as simply partner of
|.
judgment of a partner, why not hold Dale &
Dale answerable for matter with which
they had directly to do and which came with
in the prosecuting attorneys duty as an Off
cery
We don't pretend to charge that either
Stanley or Dale violated good. conscience, or
that either, with the light they had, was |
derelict of duty. But if Stanley was, Dale |
was equally so. If there.was any obligation |
on Stanley to prosecute, the obligation was
equally strong on Dale. But in no event, |
may be charged against Dale or |
Stanley, can Wall be held to answer for |
matter with which he had no connection |
and over which he had no control.
There were many circumstances surround
ing the case that the public are not advised |
Of because they did not come out in the trl-
al, circumstances which would put an en-
tirely different face upon the matter, no
doubt, but that Wall is just as much to
blame for Dale's failure as for Stanley's, and
no more, no reasonable man can fail to see.