Seattle daily post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, W.T. [Wash.]) 1881-1888, 1884-10-22
DAILY POST -In1ElueEnctR.


CommentinE upoo tne poDts1
ion--or 70 b ssehnisal /" srRumsns q
q brief''--of Chas. 8. Voorhees, Dsmc-
cratic esndidats for Deiseats - Oos-
ersss. in relation 10 the power at ths
United States 10 forfsit the unssrnsd
portion Of the Northern Pssifs land
grant, We Asked certain Important quss-
tiona. Assuming THAI When the doc1-
nsnt in question vas aIsd. q gave az
preston 70 the professional opinion Of
Mr.. voorhees,, these qssriss were pro
pounded q Has Mr.. Voorhees, changed
that spinions II %, when and for what
purpose"
This question Il rsissd. q presents
isself 10 every mind. Are the yieus Of
an attornsy employed - present his
clients side Of s4ss bsfors oours 70
be oonsidersd In shs sane lieht, % have
she SAME binding Sorss upon The indi-
viduai as Though pabliely declared IN
an unprofseuionsi ospasitys We are
mot prepared . discuss this question o.
professional ethics. Prassieslly speak
ing Il Il certain that n attorney pssssnss
but one sids Of . cass 10 court and
that an opinion dednesd from decisions
fsyorine that aids n 70 be found In every
brisf. We do nos think that In rracsios
the rules Of professional ethics are ad-
hsrsd 20 % atristly - soimmusAbIy bind
anattornsy 70 an expression Of judicial
opinion IN brief; that 10 10 say that
the position taken always rises 70 The
plane u conviction. We DO not believe
that tks opinion Of Mr.. Voorhees,, on .
legal question. expressed In m argu-
msnt, eithsr oral or written, before .
United States land ofIiosr On dsciaicns
quoted thsrein. should b taken ~ an
absolute expression Of personal opinion.
The dsoisions upon which the dsdno.
lions In brief are based may Be be-
loved 70 be erroneous by the pleadsr,
bat until reversed. thsy are The lac and
binding upon the professional opinion,
II mot upon the convictions and judg-
msnt Of an attorney.
whatever may have been the profess
sionai or even tbs personal views Of Mr..
Voorhees, when the argument In ques-
ton was Gled, the important matters 70
10 nov considered ars Does be now
believe the land grant non -forfsItabls !
IL he sincsre In his protsstations Of
fidelity TO the cause Of forfeiture Or
has he, for the purpose Of securing 20
lisical promotion, ashamed . charactsr
not justified and rnsintainsd BY his
public acts and expressed sentiments
prior to his nomination. Mr.. voorhees,
10 not here 10 answer these qusstions-
There Ia, however. abundant documen-
tary evidence available, some Of which
10 presented in this paper. To this "
direct attention.
Upon this evidence, the Posr INTEL
IomoxR. and svery slectsr who reads
IL. lie called upon 70 decide. We do not
hesitate 70 say, that In our Judgment 10
10 ample, convincing, conclusive proof.
that Charles 3. Voorhees,, aside frsm his
connection with this canvass, waving
his nominations upon an unconditional
forfeiture platform, without reference
TO his public acceptance and advocacy
thereof, was, long before the question
assumed political prominence In this
Territory. an earnest. honest, uncom-
promising advocate Of the forfeiture Of
the Northern Pacific unearned land
grant. Before public action de-
msnding forfeiture had been taken tn
this city, Mr.. voorhees, had procured
the introduction of bill for that pur-
pose In the u. 3. senate. That was In
February last, and up 10 this writing. 90
far an We know, (and We have closely In.
vestigatsd this suhjsct) there has been
no word oppressed, no act committed,
no line written BY Charles 8. Voorhees,
that is In conflict with the object Of that
bill, or that does not justify condolences
In bis sincerity. To his record upon
this vitality important question Mr..
voorhees, can point with pride; judged
by Il he 10 entitled 10 credit for consist
ency and zeal 2
In challenging Mr.. Voorhees, sincerity
upon tkis question: We have but followed
the consistent course which Il IL the
duty and aim Of an honest Journalist 10
pursue. Detesting hypoorisy, abomin'
ating shams, adniring integrity, we are
always ready 70 challenge. In the
public interest, and for the public safe
~. the sincerity Of any candidate for
an important Office. This We have done
with Mr.. Voorhees,. Our verdict In his
case, 10 that he has been consistent. and
his present declarations on the subject
Of land grant forfeiture are entitled 10
full credence.
M0RDHEs AND aoRBrasTA