Emmons County record. [volume] (Williamsport, D.T. [i.e. N.D.]) 1884-current, 1886-10-29
Dicks Opinion.
WILLIAMsPORf, Oct. 25.
To the Editor of the RECORD:

10 the Editor Of the RECORD:
SIR-In your last issue you have an article
speak in terms of high praise Of Mr.. Armstrong
as a candidate for that Office. Your paper being
avowedly the medium for the expression Of
q few remarks as to Mr.. Armstrong; suitability
for the office to which he aspires. You speak
first of his abilities as lawyer, and mention as
Michigan University. There Is an old saying
''The proof of the pudding is in the eating''
Apply this to Mr. Armstrong's case and tell the
cases which MIR. Armstrong has handled have
been conducted to successful issue? Surely q
graduate of Michigan University ought to be
lawyer appears against him. But such does not
suit will show.
Again, you say Mr.. Armstrong Is course in poll
tics has been entirely consistent; but by insinu
alton you seem to imply that Mr.. Herrick's has
not been So beg to differ. The duties Of Dis
duties of every officer in the Nation, from Presi-
dent down. .-ED), and that law applies equally
to Republican, Democrat. independent or Mug
gives man of any party q chance to forward his
own political opinions. II this be so, where is
the inconsistency in q candidate seeking the
dependently (With a Democratic nomination
ED, rs Mr.. Herrick has done? ! am not at
tempting in any way to plead Mr.. Herrck's case,
clearly demonstrates his fitness for reelection.
My sole objection in troubling you is to find out
where the good lawyer" and general suitability
for the office shws itself in Mr.. Armstrong.
In conclusion, you offer as proof of Mr.. Arm
strong's standing as a man and lawyer an an
tieipated d. majority of one-third around Williams
it seems to me that his legal ability requires a
much acknowledgements than, q third majority
before his miserable record ss 9 lawyer in EN-
mons Is etaced from the memory of the voters OF
this county. Your obedient servant,
h. H. THIsrLETHwAITE.
The correspondents premises, argu-
ment and conclusions are certainly ''as
clear as mud" In his criticism of MIR.
Armstrong he cites the Wescott case.
Now, the fact is that no lawyer can tell
beforehand anything as to the testimony
to be brought against his client. In Mr..
Wescotts case the evidence given by sew
eral witnesses was overwhelmingly
against that gentleman. All the great
lawyers from Sergeant Buzzfuzz to Mich
ael T. O'Connor couldn't have saved that
case,
The correspondent asks us to state how
many cases Mr. Armstrong has won.
MOT knowing, we cannot say" We
that he has lost. As we have not "kept
cases. on the law business of our attor-
neys, we cannot state the exact proper
tiOn. We nre aware that "the proof of
the pudding IS in chewing the string" or
words to that effect. And, applying this
maxim, we wish to say that one thing is
certainly in favor of the Republican can
didate. Right here at home, where both
the Democratic and Republican nominees
have resided for three years. nobody-not
even the correspondent himself-seems
to question the assertion that Mr.. Arm
strong will receive large majority OF
the votes. As the correspondent seems
to think that two thirds Of the votes is not
much of an Endorsement, we will suggest
three-fourths. It is our candid opinion
that nearly three-fourths of the ballots
thrown next Tuesday, Within a dozen
miles of Williamsport, will bear the name
of the Republican candidate. We know
that the people in this part of the county,
at least, want man who is competent
and will attend to the duties of his office
and we know that they know that Mr.
Armstrong will be both competent and
attentive.
AS to boiling, the RECORD is firm in the
belief that where man processes to be-
long to a certain party; where he allows
his name to be brought before conven-
tion of that party, works for a nomina-
tion. and is defeated, he should abide by
the result.