Western Kansas world. [volume] (WaKeeney, Kan.) 1885-current, 1894-08-04
FAIRNESS.

| the qualifications and competency of
candidate are always legitimate and
proper subjects for inquiry and investi.
CATION. vet It is with much reluctance
that we engage in this particular contro-
versy from the fact that both candidates
are residents of our city and both per-
sonaI friends of ours and we had hoped
to pass through the present campaign
without being compelled to say aught
or give offense to either. And while the
discussion was limited to newspapers
outside of our own county, we have re-
manned silent believing that the voters
of this community, where both candi-
dates are we'll known, were capable of
voting intelligently without further en-
Gghtenment from Us.
But when the official organ, of the
Leaders of the democracy of Trego eoun-
ty, take the initiative and challenges the
opposition, further silence on our part
could only be construed as an admission
of the truthfulness of the allegations
contained in the Omnicrat's bill of par
ticulars
Fortunately the evidence is contained
in the record and it is upon that which
we rely; it is open to every voter for
inspection and examination, AMI if we
mistake or omit anything material we
shall feel obliged to any OF Mr.. Saum's
friends who will take the pains to in
form US OF our error and we will cheer
. f,,I1 10
with the facts.
W. E. Saum, democratic candidate for
Judge OF the 23rd Judicial district, we
find from the record, was only admitted
TO practice about four years ago. Prior
to his admission we learn, upon investi-
CATION, that he had never taken q course
of study, never attended Il law school
and in fact had just picked up" a few
facts. His practice since that time has
been confined almost exclusively TO 4
few unimportant foreclosure suits in
which no appearance was made by the
defendant. That by reason of his lack
OF experience he is utterly unfit to fill
the position to which he aspires.
i The only cases SO far as we can learn
in which he has ever been employed in
the district court wherein lie has been
resisted by the opposing party are as
follows:
First-The case of State VS.. NJ. w
BEEN in Trego county; Il prosecution
under the prohibitory law, in which N.
for the defense. Trial was had to a jury
and only three witnesses were examined.
Second-The case of w. G. Olson VS..
Phillips & Smith and L. A. Fisher; an
action on promissory note, tried In
Trego county before jury by David
Rathbone and w. f. Saum, attorneys
for the plaintiff.
Third-The case of Rolling & Co. VS..
T.. J. r. Perry ct al, in Wallace county
a trial to the court without jury, upon
an administrator bond, in which Mr..
Saum and Lee Monroe appeared for the
plaintiff.
Us. L, M. Downs ct al. a foreclosure
case in which the principal defendants
fmade default and i'll which it appears
that some question was raised as to the
priority Of the mortgage liens which
was settled by the court without jury,
Mr. Saum appearing as attorney Tor the
Fifth-The case of w. B. Kelly VS..
Trego County bank ct al. III which no
trial was had, but a demurrer was
passed upon by the court IN Trego coun-
ty, Mr.. Saum appearing for the defend
ants.
! Sixth-The case of the State vs.. a. S.
Kendall. This was jury trial, Mr.
Saum and Lee Monroe appearing for the
prosecution.
These are the only litigated cases
which have gone to trial, SO far as we
can learn after an extended search OF
the records wherein he has ever APP
peared as attorney in the district court
If there are any others we challenge his
friends to point them out to us.
To recapitulate-Heh has, with the as
sistance of other counsel, tried three jury
cases and one court case, and alone has
tried to the court the question OF pri-
} ority of mortgage liens in one case and
argued demurrer in one other case.
Mr.. Saum has never tried jury case
alone in the district court and we have
no knowledge that he ever tried a jury
case even before a justice OF the peace
This is his record. live have omitted
anything Mr.. Saum and his friends car
find it. We think that all must agree
with us in believing that he is not COM
potent to fill the responsible position o.
district judge.
, We submit to the intelligent voter i
any attorney who has assisted in only
trying three jury cases and who has
never tried jury case alone in his life
; can be competent to fill the responsible
Office of District Judge. We think that
even Mr.. Saum's friends will admit thai
he should not aspire to that position.
The Omnicrat specially cites one o
the cases alluded to above-the Kendall
/. c&se-and says:
We are entirely neutral in this matter
+, but common fairness has prompted u
to make some inquiry We were in
formed by many who were in attendance
throughout the trial, in which case thu
two candidates were associated to
gether that Mr.. Monroe, notwithstand
ing his boosted experience and ability
did not disclose any superiority over hi
associate.
OF course the Omnicrat is neutral {?
: We will conced0 that much just now