The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1886-09-11
SHERIFF AND COUNTY ATTORNEY

TheiDemoerats are now concentrating all
their efforts to elect their candidates for sher-
iff and county attorney, more especially the
former. Some time ago they had hopes that
they might pull Mr.. Clifford through, but
they have abandoned them and are offering
to trade him off for votes for |. ID. Sawyer
Sawyer has made himself solid with the rum
men, and they are all at work for him on the
sly. He has been making a personal can
yass, and is said to feel quite confident that
he will get plurality of votes. His hopes
are founded to a large extent upon the ex-
pectation that enough Republican temper
ence men will be seduced by specious mis-
representations about the enforcement of
the Prohibitory law into voting the Third
Party ticket to cut down MI. Webb's vote
below his Mr.. King is copying Sawyer's
tactics with this disadvantage, that he has
not record on paper that he can point to
with pride when he interviews rumseller.
Republicans who may be meditating throw
ing their votes for the Third Party candi-
dates should stop and consider what will be
the effect Of such action. Everybody knows
that it is impossible for either the Prohibi-
ton candidate for sheriff or county attorney
to be elected, Either Mr.. Webb, the Repub-
lican candidate or Mr.. Sawyer, the Demo-
cratic candidate, will be the next sheriff
of this county, and either Mr.. Seiders, the
Republican candidate, or Mr.. King, the
Democratic candidate, will be the next coun-
ty attorney. Practically the choice is between
these men.
Which is likely to make the better sheriff,
Mr. Sawyer or Mr.. Webb? Whichis likely to
most faithfully execute the laws? Mr.. Saw
has held this office before. The PRESS has
published the record which he made and it is
familiar to the public. Is it record that
men devoted to the cause of prohibition want
to endorse by rewarding the man who made
it by rejecting him to the same office? 1t has
been demonstrated by actual experience that
Mr.. Sawyer will not faithfully enforce the
liquor law. A vote for him or vote for the
Third Party candidate is therefore practi-
cally vote to knowingly and willfully place
in Office man who failed to perform his
duty when he previously occupied the same
office.
Concerning the candidates for county
attorney not much need be said. Mr.. Seiders
has held that office now for nearly two
years, ana unIll ILLS campaign was peSuu no
intimation was given that he had not per-
formed the duties of his position faithfully,
The charges that have been made since then
have been completely disproyed by an exam
ination of the court records. The Rev. Mr..
LeLacheur, who is quite as strong prohibit
ZIONIST as the people who write the Argus
over anonymous signatures. has examined
these records, and he testifes that the
liquor law has been as well enforced by the
county attorney as the other laws. Who is
Mr.. Seiders's opponent? 1t is Col. Elliot
King. Does anybody suppose that he will
make better prosecuting office than Mr..
Soldiers? Does anybody think he will deal
more stringently with violators of the law
than Mr.. Seiders? Is he man of better
character than Mr.. Seiders? Is he better
citizen? Voters should contrast the two
men before throwing their votes. If they
are not acquainted with them they should
make inquiry concerning them. They should
ascertain from personal investigation as far
as possible which of them is the better man
to conduct the law business of the county for
the next two years and vote accordingly. If
they do that, Mr.. Seiders will be elected by
an overwhelming majority.