The Evening critic. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1881-1885, 1881-11-30

teemed contemporary, the star, last even
ing:
Whether Mr.. william L. Chandler would
have made good Solctor:dcnoral or not,
Acting Acknowledgement Phillips has demon.
stratcd that SolicitOrGcncral Phillips was
mighty good officer 10 bc got rid OF, rs was
proposed by President Garfield last spring.
events OF history
This paragraph embraces two PROPOSE
tions. The first is in the subjunctve mode,
and embodies thereby an interrogatory slur
upon our valued friend, Mr.. William L.
Chandler. The second is in the indicative,
and directly impugns the good name of
Solicitor.G General Phillips We do not
admit the justice of either. On the con.
trary, we denounce the injustice of both.
That Mr.. William L. Chandler "would |
have made good solicitor-General " is a
proposition which admits of no interroga-
tion point, in our Judgment. The fact that
he was not made such was due to tho cap
tious opposition ofa person variously known |
as MacYeagh or Mcvey, who, after sum-
mer of sicksh apotheosis at the hands ofthe
Star, suddenly disappeared, with many I'M
settled accounts aud foul odor lingering |
in his rear.
temporary is not expected to print the
news ; but it surely ought to remember his
tory.
History does not say that President
Garfield" at any time proposed that
Solicitor General Phillips Should be got
rid Of" On the contrary, when President
Garfield nominated Mr.. William E. Chan
dler to be Solicitor General, he at the. same
time rendered to Mr.. Phillips an appoint
ment which in every sense, judicial as well
as political, must have been viewed rs n
promotion.
We have no means of knowing the rca-
son or the cause for our esteemed contem-
porarys splcnetic assault on solicitor.Gcn-
eral Phillips. Hitherto tho record of that
officer has been, for these times, singularly
spotless; so that no breath Of scandal of
any description whatsoever has ever been
blown upon him, from even the most rcck-
less and least responsible source.
Why, then, does our c. C. assert as fact
"justifcd by the events of history" that
Solicitor. General Phillips was a mighty
good officer to be got rid of last spring"
What has he done or neglected to do? Has
he violated any law, or otherwise contra
vcned the proprieties misused the powers
or maladministercd the duties of his of
flceP Has he been guilty of any crime,
msdemeanor or impropriety, official or in
dividual2
We ask for information solely.
What has Solicitor General Phillips done
that he should be assaied in the sub
itory Of all that is good and pure and in
fallible as our e. c.?
For our part we have never heard any
thing to the discredit of Mr.. Phillips. And
the readers of THE CRITIC will doubtless
bear witness that we usually hear of things
simultaneously with aud frequently sooner
than our esteemed contemporary. We con
fess, however, that in this instance oui
@. C. has anticipated us.
The Star evidently has some news about
the Solictor-General which no other jour
nal has obtained. There is no alternative
to this solution unless we adopt the theory
that the able editor may have had an un
usually bad day yesterday with his chronic
dyspepsia. Perhaps that was the trouble
We have heard that our c. Co. in default oi
brains, is edited by bowels, which are also
dyspeptic, whereby the pangs of constipa-
tion are frequently mistaken in its conduct
for the impulses of virtue.
Is the Solicitor-General bad man, OF
does the able editor of the star need a ca
thartic?
We pause for reply-whch we haven
the slightest idea that we will ever get.