Washington standard. [volume] (Olympia, Wash. Territory) 1860-1921, 1896-04-24
Judge by the Record.

! Ed. STANDARD:
During the last three years Milo \.
Root has had thirty cases in the Su-
pIeme Court, in nineteen OF which, he
appeared as County Attorney, OF
which only four were decided against
him. One OF Roots testimonials in
last issue of the STANDARD.
, During the period specified Root
has been the attorney in two civil
cases, Corliss vs.. Dunning, Wash,
332, and Stickler VS.. Giles, 3 Wash,
l41-the latter being the only one OF
any Importance and it was decided
against him" If there has been
another civil Case in which he has
even appeared" in the last three
years." the " records" are silent
In the following cases, State vs..
Grimes, Z Wash, 445, Union Savings
Bank VS.. Gelbach, s Wash, 497, State
VS.. Prince, 9 Wash, l07, State vs.. Oil
yer 1 | Pac. S9J, State vs.. Hopkins fl
Pac. 9OG, :" Milo y. Root appeared rs
County Attorney" land the six Cases
were decided against him."
Root has furnished list OF cases
decided for him" 10y the Supreme
Court and the last case cited is that of
State ex rel Barton VS.. Hopkins. Al
Pac l3i, the one which he abandoned
to the tender mercies of o. G. White,
and using Roots vulgar vernscular
which James A. Haight iron, and it is
the case over which hen Root used q
column of Scobey's paper cackling over
the decision as having Matched out the
egg he laid when he wrote the "opin-
ion to the Board of County Commits
sioners." He never made an argu.
ment in the case, but claimed that the
Supreme Court adopted CHS opinion"
to the Commissioners.
Continuing his list, State vs.. Sick
man, not reported, Root won this
case; the man escaped.
And will Root claim that he really
tried to win State ex rel Ruth vs.
County Commissioners? Was not
this one of the friendly suits that
clerk Hopkins intimates abound in
the court house precincts?
The court was for or "against"
Root, according to his version. When
did Root win case upon technicalities?
The refusal of our Supreme Court
to reverse criminal cases on account of
mistakes of prosecuting attorney that
do not prevent fair trial, prove that
judges are carrying out the spirit of
the law, and the false but common
idea, that criminals who are able to
employ able attorneys will be set free,
has no application to our Supreme
court, has been proven by the fate of
the Isensee and the krug-a notable
case in our county and state being
that of State vs.. Womack, 4 Wash. p.
l9-the decision in this case gave
notice that bribery and corruption in
Office would be dealt with in our courts
without regard to station OF criminal
or influence of friends.
But now comes the dark page in
this transaction, After all the ex-
pense incurred by Thurston county
and successful labor of Charles H.
Aver, Roots predecessor, ably sec
onded by the former attorney,
Reynolds, the case was remanded to
the Superior Court for trial, and a case
involving men Of note and the serious
charge of bribery, was, against the
advice of Judge Reynolds, deliberately
dismissed by Milo A. Root.
A recent investigation in this matter
has convinced me that a " testimonial
from Judge Reynolds would be in
order.
A review OF the other cases in which
Roots name or ghost appeared" in
the Supreme Court, and OF the
criminal cases tried and not tried by
him in the Superior SQUIRT, would
make interesting reading but would
exhaust the patience of the reader.
DANIEL GABY.