Aberdeen herald. [volume] (Aberdeen, Chehalis County, W.T.) 1886-1917, 1908-08-24
In Pretended Ignorance Of the Cases Recently
Cited in the Herald
The Attention If tho O~gan Of the "Combination' Is
Called to the Widow Stevens Case, the
Case of the Hanson Estate, and
the Henry A. Kalb
Affair.

The Montesano Vidette has our
sympathy. BY reason of its location
the burden of the defense OF the
Abel-Irwin combination falls upon
this, usually reliable paper, and lts
efforts to make good really ap-
nroach the pathetic. Given re-
sonahlv good case, the Vidette edl-
tor is capable of presenting It's SIDE
in a forceful, convincing way that is
wholly foreign to his labored efforts
in this instance. The reason Is not
far to seek; he has no case.
Judge Irwin is charged by nine
tenths of the att orneys practlclnS
before him of degree OF partlallty
to w. II. Abel that is injurious TO
them-and sometimes spells robbery
10 their clients. This charge Is
grayely made by those who ought 10
know, and so far they have relied en-
tirely upon the records OF the court
for its substantiatiOn. When the
charge was first made in formal
manner by the Bar Association, the
editor of the Herald was only aware
of it's truth in casual way, by MS
knowledge of the methods OF w. II.
Abel and common report. Since the
action of the bar, looking to the
Durification of the court, we nave eH-
amined the records in a number OF
cases and have been amazed at the
revelations they contained. In some
of those cases, we have published tht
records. and the language OF those
archives are the strongest we nave
seen in denunciation of the methods
prevailing of late years in the Su
nerior court of Chehalis county
particularly in the Probate depart
ment. Yet, in the face of this. thf
vidette finds itself compelled to emf
such absurdities as the following:
sIf Mr.. Abel has been favored b!
Judge Irwin surely the place to searcf
for proof to substantiate the charge Il
the court record. There Is no othel
evidence as reliable. All will admi
the fact whether biased or not. Wh!
has not this been produced? be
cause the records are so conclusive
SO absolutely convincing or th'
perfidy of those who are responsible
for the charge of favoritism agalns
Judge Irwin, that their production
would prove damning and eloquent II
denunciation of those who sought t'
tarnish the fair name of an homes
jurist,'
A truth seems to have crept II
there unwittingly, when we are CIT
ed to the court record for proof But
what can be said of the question
"Why has not this been produced?
There is but one answer. The pubic
must be deceived. On July 30, th'
Herald published the court recor'
in the probate court case wherein
Widow Stevens was shown to have
Oeeu IODDtu Ol hCl tHNdlC ho' ~
our language, nor in the words o
a lawyer who would assail the homo
OF an honest Judge" but in The Ian
guage of tthe official record of th'
court. In the language Of Jaw
Yer whose reputation for honesty ant
sincerity stands second to none q
the bar-or of Judge Irwin himself
The Nidette attempted to dodg
this record by showing how adroitl,
Judge Irwin had side-stepped thi
case-against the strenuous oppo
sition of the despoiled worman's At
torney-and thereby aided in tn
confirmation of the outrage that wa
wrought upon her. If this recor
was not accurately published in tn
Herald, or if Attorney Hutcheso
misstated the case, why has it nc
been shown? On August 6. tn
Herald exploded this Irwin did nc
try the casetry the case" theory S
effectually that nothing has bee
heard of it since. Nor has our quer
been replied to. why did Judge Il
win call in a visiting judge over tn
protest of Attorney HutchesoE? Th
public still awaits the reply No7
while the case is being banded abol