, 1888-10-26

ihC cut lNothNo AS" ioNDbAoh5 ~
its morning contemporary in a succinct
categorical manner We hope and pray
for the sake of economy in printers ink
and paper, and for the peace and happi-
ness of the reading public, that, to use a
legal phrase, the issues are now made up
and the case will be submitted to the jury
of qualified electors on the 9th day of
November, 1883, to settle the question as
to whether w. R. Stoll or Hugo Donzel-
man shall be the attorney for the county
of Laramie for the next term of two years
from the LIST of January, 1889.
On the predication hat this is the case,
that the Suns Indictment is made up, we
will traverse each and every question pro-
pounded in its regular order.
We concede that the Suns campaign is
legitimate and are prepared to admit that
the Sans pitching the battle on the lone
question of Expenses is wise and STRAIT
egic, for by the common consent of an
almost unanimous community there can
be no personal or professional comparison
between the two candidates for county
attorney instituted which will not be
laughed at as an insincere and silly joke,
insulting to the intelligence of the people
of the county Of Laramie.
We can see that if the Sun can show
that Mr.. Stoll has been dishonest, or has
not followed with an eye single the public
good in his administration of his office,
then, indeed, it behooves the voters to
examine closely his record and act in
accordance with their convictions, but it
also behooves them to compare the alter
native presented by the Republicans and
see if in the event they cannot vote for
Stoll it would not be wiser and better
ITO take to the woods than to vote for
Councilman.
Question No. does THE LEADER
pretend to claim that the affairs of Lara
ME county have not been e~xtravagantly
and wastefully managed under the present
administration? This is the first question
propounded by the San.
Now, Mr.. Stoll is responsible only for
the administration of his Office of county
attorney. It has been shown that when
he came into Office crimes were rampant,
the Jail was crowded with felons, the peo-
pie had. lost faith in the efficacy of law
and were threatening a resort to mob
violence. la the face of this crowded,
criminal docket, and demoralized public
sentiment, he entered into the arena,
brought order out OF chaos, procured
stringent convictions in every justifable
case, established perfect respect for the
law, suppressed crime and reinstated a
complete sense of public security. That
he had peculiar cases, hanging on circum'
s%tantial evidence, and requiring extraordi
nary, but legitimate, and absolutely nee.
essary expense, no sane man will deny,
and no public spirited citizen deprecate.
The only alternative presented to Mr..
Stoll was to prosecute or to dismiss.
Will any respectable citizen say, remem,
bering the way these cases came up, that
he could dismiss with public appreciation,
or official honesty? If he was to prose,
cute, then it was his sworn duty to use
all fair and honorable means to convict.
Question No. 2.-DoesI it deny that
Prosecuting Attorney Stoll instituted
unnecessary prosecutions for the sake of
self gloriication?
This question is an insult and has no
fair or decent basis. Mr.. Stoll neither
has nor had any power to institute a pros
%ecution; that is the sole province of the
grand jury. Aside from that there could
be no reason for such q course. Mr..
Stol's ability, courage and success in al
the cases he has prosecuted from the be-
ginning, has been SO conspicuous that it
was known and pronounced of all men
and not even questioned by any envious
professional rival. We brand this as a
%gratuitous iusult-unworthy even tn,
iaundiced and malicious editor of tn,
Sun.
Question No. 3.-Does The LEADEr
deny that hundreds of persons wert
brought into court as witnesses at groar
expense to the county who knew little O.
nothing about the suits in question?
When bombast is added to universe
mendacity in a five line question, it i
straining on patience and self respect t
notice it. The statement is absolutel,
false and the Sun annot name a singl,
person who was not brought here with
knowledge by the prosecutor of what he
: would state and that his statement wa
S essential to the case on which he wa
= summoned. The turn certain cases tool
5 on trial may have and did obviate the in