The Prosecutor's Record: 'Arrest on Suspicion, Investigate Afterwards'

In an open letter published in several papers two weeks ago, J. A. Rochford, prosecuting attorney and candidate for re-election, advances as a reason for his re-election that he has, himself and alone, performed all the duties devolving upon the prosecutor's office.

By intimation and also by express statement he charges that his predecessor in office, at great expense to the county, employed outside assistance to perform the duties which should have been performed by him alone. The charge may have been made with a knowledge of its falsity, or it may be the result of gross ignorance on the part of Mr. Rochford.

Mr. Kirkpatrick has served the county faithfully and well as prosecuting attorney for eight years. His opponent has served but two. He has tried and convicted more men than perhaps any other prosecuting attorney in the state outside of the large cities, and as a prosecutor his reputation extends throughout the state. The record of his cases shows an exceedingly large number of convictions, while outside of those pleading guilty the present prosecutor can boast of only a very small percentage of convictions.

Mr. Kirkpatrick never caused the arrest of any man on a criminal charge until it was highly probable that he was guilty. Expensive trials were thus avoided, and what is more, no innocent man was compelled to bear the stigma of unjust arrest and imprisonment. Mr. Rochford can lay no claim to such a course of conduct. The records of the superior court will show that many men have been arrested on a criminal charge, kept confined for varying periods of time and then released because the evidence would not warrant a trial. The policy seems to have been, arrest on suspicion and investigate afterwards. It is safe to say that Mr. Kirkpatrick was never compelled to move the court to dismiss the defendant in a criminal action before the case went to the jury, because the state had failed to make a case, as was done by Mr. Rochford in the case of the State vs. Elliott.

As to the specific charge that Mr. Kirkpatrick employed outside assistance, the records will show that no assistance was ever given Mr. Kirkpatrick in the following cases and under the circumstances as follows:

In the Lattin-Moody murder cases, the brother of the murdered man employed at his own expense solely, assistance to the prosecutor.

In the famous Matte stealing case, the Northport smelter had its own regularly employed attorneys, Chas. A. Voorhees, of Spokane, and His Honor Judge Carey, assist Mr. Kirkpatrick, without one cent of expense to the county. Any prosecutor would always be glad to avail himself of such assistance when it was furnished free of charge.

The Foster-Campbell murder case came on for trial at the close of a long and arduous criminal term of court. Judge Richardson advised the county commissioners to employ an attorney to assist the prosecutor in this case, for the reason that he was worn out by the labor rendered in the other cases. The commissioners, despite the strenuous objections of Mr. Kirkpatrick, did employ Wallace Mount, who is now a member of the supreme court, to try this case and paid him $300, which was a very nominal fee, considering the services rendered.

In the case of the State vs. Loplaut, the assistant attorney general assisted Mr. Kirkpatrick in the trial of the case. It is the power and the duty of the attorney general to render assistance in the trial of all criminal cases, whenever he thinks the same is necessary or his services are requested, and such services are rendered free of charge to the county.

The record, therefore, and not the statement of a candidate, shows that with the one exception noted, no money was spent for outside assistance during the eight years Mr. Kirkpatrick was prosecuting attorney, and then the services were furnished over his protest.

The record shows that Mr. Kirkpatrick did not charge innocent men with the commission of crime and after keeping them imprisoned for several weeks discharge them, but that he investigated all criminal charges, arrested only criminals and convicted them. Such a prosecuting attorney protects the interests of the taxpayers, protects the individuals from baseless charges, protects society at large from the ravages of the criminal, and should be re-elected to the office for which he is a candidate.

Mr. Kirkpatrick has been a resident of Stevens county for sixteen years; he is one of the solid, substantial citizens of the county seat and has one of the finest homes in that city. He is thoroughly identified with every movement looking toward the development of the county and its natural resources, and with his hosts of friends in every part of the county will be elected by a rousing majority.