The campaign for Clinton County Family Court judge promises to be as spirited as any judicial race in memory around here. We've already received some incendiary and unpublishable Letters to the Editer in support of each candidate. It's wise, therefore, to explain what we'll accept and what we won't.

The incumbent is Timothy Lawliss of Peru; the challenger is William Meconi of Plattsburgh.

Family Court probably engenders more resentment than either of the other two county courts -- criminal or surrogate. Family Court judges are required to make wrenching decisions that affect individuals and families in very personal ways. Often, there is no right or wrong but shades in between. Almost always, families in that court are already greatly troubled. It would be rare for all parties to walk out of Family Court happy with the disposition of the case. More likely, at least one of the parties would be embittered and maybe even be vengeful.

The latter is the tone of several letters we've received. It is almost unavoidable that a sitting Family Court judge will be the target of spiteful, malicious letter writers. In the case of this election, we have received a number of letters of that ilk, charging either the challenger or the incumbent with various kinds of questionable court conduct -- particularly the incumbent, since he has issued so many rulings that have by necessity rankled complainants or defendants.

Most of these letters bring up a specific case and recount the facts, as the writer saw and interpreted them, and say the judge was outrageously unfair and motivated by all sorts of evil inclinations.

We will not run such letters. One of the rules of publishing a newspaper is that the truth must be adhered to, to the extent the paper is able to ascertain the truth. Writers are welcome to express their opinions, but they may not characterize as fact something the editors can't know to be fact. We can't possibly be familiar with every case, nor do we have the time or resources to verify allegations in each letter. Such characterizations may constitute libel. Therefore, we will not publish them.

When writing a letter in support of one of the candidates, we require that you stick to the positive points of your candidate rather than impugning the character or motivations of the other -- the first are not supportable by easily demonstrable fact, and the second cannot be known by anyone other than the candidate himself.

In other words, if you relate courtroom events in a case in which you were involved, at least that part of the letter will be disqualified.

Attorneys and, especially, judges have ample occasion to create hard feelings.

The Press-Republican will be looking very carefully at letters to make sure they are truthful and not an unreliable product of sour grapes.