Frostburg mining journal., 1883-10-27
CORRESPONDENCE
A COMPARISON
Which Taxpayers are Invited to Notice


CUMBERLAND, October %, 1888
To the MINING JOURNAL.
/ would like space in your paper to
say word to the voters of this county
in reference to their votes for States
Attorney at the coming election.
There are two candidates, one put
up by each party, and yet the office is
not a political one, and the election of
either gentleman will have no political
significance whatever.
1t is a matter of capacity, of ability
to discharge the duties of the Office,
and not allow criminals to escape JUS
tice by reason of not being able to
prosecute with the same ability with
which they will be defended, it being
a well-known fact that they generally
secure the best legal talent in their de-
fence, and we have at our bar some
men of no mean order of talent. This
being true, the taxpayers are called
upon to pay all costs in criminal cases
where there is a failure to convict; then
it behooves them to cast their votes for
| the candidate who is most likely to
bring the largest amount of experience
and the most mature judgment to the
performance of the duties incumbent
upon him as prosecutor.
Now, which of the two gentlemen
will come nearer filling the bill-Mr.
Richmond or Mr.. DeVecmon Those
who know the parties and who have
been around the courthouse for the
past ten years or more, need not be
told, as they know for themselves.
But to those who may not know | can
extend the assurance that there is no
comparison at this time, whatever the
future may develop. Mr.. Richmond
is known as one of the best lawyers at
the bar, hard worker, indefatigable
in the preparation of his cases, close
reader of the law books, good talker
and close reasoner, added to the fact
that he knows most of the jurors gen.
orally taken in cases and is able,
therefore, to procure the selection of
good juries, and who always tries his
cases for all that is in them. | belie;e
what | have said in his behalf will be
sustained by all who know him as
lawyer, and none can be found to con-
trovert this statement.
On the other hand Mr.. DeVecmon
has only been at the bar a very short
time, has only tried one or two cases, is
almost entirely without experience and
of course cannot III the nature of
things have the same legal knowledge
that his opponent has, and cannot
be able to discharge the duties of the
office with the same degree of
satisfaction, and with the same
success as Mr.. Richmond. To
this must be added his want of ac-
quaintance with the people, enabling
him to make proper selection of jurors.
All this, of course, is not his fault; he
may, when he has age, meet the re-
quirements of the office, but he will
not do it in four years. Therefore, the
simple question for each voter to ask
himself before voting is-"If | had
case in court and the fees being the
same, would select Mr.. Richmond or
Mr.. DeVecmon to take charge of my
case :" Would you select a lawyer
with reputation for legal knowledge
and ability, or one with only youth to
recommend himR You may say he
will Learn, but do you want him to
learn on your case : This is the prac-
tical question for each of us to ask and
if we are desirous to save our means
and to have our business well attended
to, we will want the man with exper-
ience to go in with.
Mr.. DeVecmon has youth, the tax
payers have the money; put him in
in the office and in four years he may
come out with some experience, but
your money will be largely depleted
in paying bills while he is learning.
Put Mr.. Richmond in and he has
the experience and You can save your
money.
Every taxpayer knows how easy it
it is for an inexperienced and incom-
petent States Attorney to expend sew
eral thousands of dollars of the county
money annually in baseless and i'm
proper or futile prosecutions.
In q matter of this kind politics be-