Clearwater Republican. [volume] (Orofino, Idaho) 1912-1922, 1914-10-23
ENFORCING THE LAW.

ENFORCING THE LAW.
In the same kindly spirit in which
we have commended County Attorney
Z Holsclaw when we believed he was
right, we must take issue with him in
the matter of law enforcement and the
duty of the sheriff and the county at
torney. In his letter, published in
this paper, he says he is ready to en-
force the law when the citizens make
complaint and bring him the evidence.
WeNcannot silently accept this inter-
probation Of the law.
Letps suppose case.
Suppose that Milo George, of Fra
ser, Of any other farmer, should go to
his barn in the morning and find that
during the night thief had stolen
his team. We will imagine that Mr..
George Immediately notifies the sher-
if and the county attorney, and these
officers send back word:
"You catch the thief, and gather
up the evidence, and bring it in and
if in our opinion it is sufficient to con-
vict we will start action. But we
not are going to spend any Of the tax
payers money catching criminals, OF
looking up the evidence, or investigat-
ing to see If the law is being violat-
ed.
We believe the officials, both the
sheriff and the county attorney have
duty to perform, and that it is their
duty to seek out and search for viola
tions Of the law, and apprehend and
punish those who break the law.
We do not agree that it is the duty
Of the citizen to act the part of de-
tective to catch either horse thieves
or bootleggers. The law says the
sheriff shall, when there is reason to
believe the law is being violated, dill
igently seek out and make an earnest
effort to catch the guilty parties. In
other words the sheriff is the people g
detective, and the county attorney is
his legal assistant, whose duty and
business is to gather evidence and
prosecute Offenders.
The county attorney is not doing
his duty when he sits in his Office and
waits for the people to gather and
bring in the evidence. We cannot
believe that Mr.. Holsclaw is really
serious when he makes such defense
when charged with not doing his full
duty.
We do not know the facts in the
Elk River controversy. But take
such facts as are not disputed, name
~, that q man was murdered in a
house Of i'll fame, and that one of the
eyewitness, testifying in the pre-
sence Of the county attorney, admitted
that he was only 10 years Of age, and
was intoxicated, and in . house of i'll
fame.
We understand from the coroner
that these are the facts.
II 80 then why was no investigation
made forthwith relative to these APP
parent violations Of the law? If this
boy was intoxicated, as he 10 said to
have admitted, somebody violated the
law in giving him liquor. He was in
= house Of i'll fame, and this house
should have been closed and the in
mates arrested and prosecuted while
the officials were on the ground. The
evidence was in court.
The Republican is informed on the
most reliable information that the
house where the murder occurred was
not molested by the Clearwater county
authorities, and we know it was a
house Of i'll fame; we know that the
authorities know it was house of i'll
fame, or they are too stupid to occupy
responsible public positions. We say
we know. We do just as we'll as we
know that George Washington was
president Of the United States, or that
the Potlatch Lumber Company has q
saw mill at Elk River. We never
saw the mill, nor have we eyre seen
the house of i'll fame, but we have the
testimony Of scores of the best citi-
zens in Elk River that two houses Of
i'll fame are running wide open. Com
mon sense ought to be enough. Boz
hunks ard drunken Dagos don't ca
rouse at decent rooming house run
by ladies. And the sheriff and the