Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1882-10-11


perhaps not surprising that Mr. Dickson should
protest against the transferring the investigation
OF the jury-fxing charges from the Office OF the
District Attorney to that OF the Attorney General
But the country is pretty likely TO be satisfied
with the change, IL Mr.. Dickson IS not. That gen.
tleman is not the only person Interested in the out
come OF the case, and his wishes cannot be re-
garded as paramount 10 all other considerations
Every good citizen has as II IN concern in
the purity and efficiency OF the jury system
as Nj. Dickson can possibly have. What Is wanted
In the premises Is not individual vindicatiou or
persecution, but an Investigation that will probe
the whole matter to the bottom, AMI secure the
speedy and proper punishment of all the guilty
parties, no matter who they may be. II Mr.. Dick
sonhaS any Information essential or important 10
this end 1t can and doubtless viii be effectively
used IN the interest OF public justice II placed
where the matter is now LODGED. II he can show
other"'se, While the inquiry Is I'm progress
aiterwari, he VIII have no dificulty
In turning popular sentiment In his favor and in
bringing about new investigation under such
auspices as VIII lay bare all the facts, whoever
may De hurt Or he.pcl by them. The public tenn
per IL not III condition just now to stand any
fooiery on the subject, I1r or ginst anybody Let
MT Dickson strengthen, Instead of trying to weak
en- the han Is OF the oiicers representing the gov
eminent in the premises, ;ni the country will see
that he gets justice, il that is what he wants.
S e
In addition TO the political turmoil in the Quaker
CITY, the PhiladelDhianS are a good deal torn up
on the question o. boy windows. 1t seems that
some itreverent !nnOydtor5 upon the Philadelphia
fashion OF m0nOtOnouS rows OF prim rectangular
brick houses with white shutters and white marble
1aeinyS have had the au1acity to introduce the
Day window there in the construction of some
houses OF modern design. This was not to be
Tolerated, and the parties guilty OF the bay Win
dow enOrmity were 1T once brought into court to
answer for their crimes. case was taken up on
appeal from Philadelphia to the Supreme Court OF
Pennsylvania, and that court has given decision
that mist carry terror to the hearts OF the bay
window perpetrators. The court held that bay
windows fronting on public streets are ''an I'M
Justlhebie encroachment on the public highway,
preJuiic1A to the interests of the CON-
munity, and the rights OF individual prop
erty owners In the neighborhoOd. and that
1t Is public nuisance, the continuance OF
which the courts or equity in Pennsylvania have
power to restrain" This decision sounds odd in
washington, where bay windows the rule in
stead or the exception. Here where everybody
uses them,-or can IL they want tO,--So far from
being considered a puiSance, they are regarded as
great convenience, supplying light and ventila-
ton, and a1Ording considerable additional space
Wniie they serve TO give variety and picturesque
effect to the architecture OF the city. The park
1ngs and the wide sidewalks OF Washington to be
sure, afford ample room for the projection of bay
windows, without ''unjustifable encroachment on
The public highway" or prejudice TO the interests
or the community and the rights of individual
property owners in the neighbOrh0Od-