The Evening critic., 1882-10-28

THE ISSUANCE of process for tho arrest of
Mr.. William Dickson on tho afidavits Of
McNclly and Bowen demonstrates nothing
except that Brewster Cameron has been
able to compel the Attorney-G General to
stand by him in his emergency. During
the preliminary Investigation" by Mr.. II.
II. Wells, various rumors, carrying more or
less marks Of authenticity, found their way
to the public, to the effect that all was not
serene in the Department and that there
was n pronounced disinclination on the
part of other members of the Administra-
tion to countenance Brewster in his attempt
to protect his nephew. But it now appears
that the nephew was master of the situa'
tion, and that, whatever might be the view
taken of tho matter by other members Of
the Cabinet, tho Attorney.Gcneral at least
had no alternative but to do his subordi-
mates bidding.
Hence the final adoption of the pro-
gramme which involves the prosecution of
William Dickson for "conspiring with Geo.
w. Driver to get money from tho Govern
ment," and this upon the testimony of
Henry A. Bowen and Brewster Cameron.
1t is observed at the outset that Bowen and
Cameron fell into u material error of date
in their sworn statements, itself of suiii
cient gravity to wholly vitiate their testi.
mony, and that Mr.. II. II. Wells in his re-
view Of the documents, wholly overlooks
this important lapse. But it is possible
that 1t was suffered to pass with the reser-
vation that, whenever detected, it could be
l,1n ~
easily tenable in view of tho fact that re-.
cent witness in court here was permitted to
account for n discrepancy between two of
his own sworn statements, amounting to
$10,sO0 on that ground. With this prcce
dent in view Brewster Cameron's special
attorney Wells, was undoubtedly justl-
fed in presuming that if John Walsh could
charge the difference between twelve hum
dred and twelve thousand dollars 10
clerical error" surely Bowen and Brews-
ter Cameron ought to be allowed to account
for the difference between the 23l and the
Gath of the same month on similar
theory
1t is not our purpose, however, to discus,
the details of this wonderful procedure.
Our main point is that, after much backing
and filling, Brewster Cameron has been
permitted by the Attorney General to
have his own way, and Wells scheme of
whitewash with all its super rservicea
BILE absurdity, has been adopted. 1t is
doubtless better so. The Department of
Justice under its present management is SO
stepped in fraud, vice and conspiracy anl
SO foul with the rottenness Of its iastru.
mentalities, that the best way to begin the
process of reformation is by giving its
scoundrels full swing to do their wogst.
Had Attorney. General Brewster, in the
beginning of this complication, summarily
unloaded Brewster Cameron, leaving him
and his pals to struggle with fate as best
they might, the newspaper correspondents
would have seized the opportunity TO
blazon the fact as an evidence of the stern
ness of his integrity and he would have
gained rather than lost prestige by the
operation. But the course the affair has
taken makes the Attorney General at last
the tacit if not the active accomplice oi
Brewster Cameron and Bowen, and when
they go down-which is inevitable -he
must go with them. On the whole We
think it fortunate for the interests of pub
lie honor and justice, that Bowen ant
Brewster Cameron have been able to fore
the Attorney. General to stand in will
them and share their lot.