National Republican., 1882-12-29
OFFICIAL 1MPUDENcE.
4r. District Attorney WoosIford Attempts
TO Read the Attorney General Lesson in
Propriety and Gets n Reply.

Ar. District Attorney WoOSIford Attempts
to Read the Attorney General Lesson In
Propriety and Gets n Reply.
Netc York Times.
WASHINGTON, Dec. 27.--It has been re-
ported here for some time that the official
head of District Attorney Woodford would
soon fall into tho basket, and now it appears
that the feelings of the attorney general arc
by no means cordial toward his subordinate
in New York. The trouble arose
in relation to some correspondence about
the case of Edward 7. Morrissey who
was arrested in August last by an inspector
of the Postoflice department charged with
having violated the law by sending lottery
circulars through the mails. The story goes
as il is told here, that several persons in
terested themselves in behalf of the prisoner
and that in the temporary absence of the post
Office inspector Assistant District Attorney
Apgar, with the consent of his chief, dis
charged Morrissey. The Postof1ice depart
ment made complaint to the department OF
Justice, and on November II the attorney
general wrote to Mr.. Woodford, asking
for an explanation. Mr.. Woodford replied on
November % to the effect that the prisoner
had been discharged by what he regarded as
wise exercise of discretionary power. He
cited the case of one Hawley, u Connecticut
school teacher, who had also been arrested fol
violating the postal laws, and who had also
been released by wise exercise of discretion
The last words in the letter were those which
were not palatable to the attorney general
Mr.. WoodtOrd said he had received from the
attorney general a reply to an invitation to
attend the New England dinner, and the re-
ply had been forwarded in penalty envelope
the use of which except on official business is
..-1,n 10 .NF4 At1 A..aI
did not assume that Mr.. Brewster had inten-
tionally violated the law but he used the in
cidcnt as an illustration of what u wise dis
creton would allow him TO overlook and il
is said ut the department of Justice that he
remarked that he did not think it was his
duty as a prosecuting officer, in the wise ex-
ercise of discretionary power, to take official
cognizancc of this violation of the law by the
attorney general. To this lettcr the attorney
general sent, on December 8, the following
reply:
:. l.. WoopFoRD, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Dear
Sir Your letter of the 23d instant has been re.
ceved and considered by me. have cau.cd all
of the records in the matter that is the subject Ol
your correspondence to be laid before me-. The
complaint that is preferred ut my office is preferred
at the Instance OF the PUstotice department, aud
must respect their requests. do not intend to
deny you a reasonable discretion in such matters,
but do request that you Will require your sub
ordinates, when they undertake to exercise their
discretion, not to abuse 1t. that The matter
should be complained of by the department from
which the subject originated that Is cO tded to
your charge. 1t is unnecessary for me 10 enter
into critical answer toyOur letter. Much that you
say is reasonable. think that MIR. Apgar acted
with irrgularity. After the man had been bound
over, 1t his duty to have waited until the in
spoctor again appeard, and If he was absent make
the party wait. The inspector was absent from
necessity, aud the government is not to be treated
as If ii were private individual, and If people
come claiming exemption because of errors OF
judgment or want of information, having been
bound over, they must wait no matter what tile
consequence is until the agents OF the govern
ment are heard again. And after all, wien this
case was reopened, 1t appeared that the personal
statement of Mr.. MOrrissey was received against
sider that an irregular!ty. am dealing with Mr..
Apgars acts, not his recommendations TO his
DONE Again, the Mr.. Hawley to whom you refer
as u poor school teacher, of Greenwich, Conn., as
TO whom similar discretion was exercised, has
again been arrested for similar otiense, That
should admonish your assistants to he cautious In
The exercise of the discretion that is imposed in
Let me further add that your alluson to my
personal letter answering your invitation to the
next New England dinner is not proper and Is in
a,,iinlssiole between US. ~ mlshl not DC aumlss,
Dle as between gentlemen in matter OF personal
business, but AS between the head of this depart
ment and one Ot It's subordinates 1t cannot bt per.
mitted There is no analogy III the ilustl alton al
any rate. In the cases complained OF official com
plants by authorized agents were preferred aud u
department Of the government asked that these
complaints should be prosecuted. The supposed
mistakes of the parties complained of are ques'
lions of fact that you have undertaken TO deter
mine, when the Postofice depar. .ment thinks
they should be determined by legal proceeding
The letter wrote to you was, by my clerk, very
properly supposed to be an Oilica letter because
1t was addressed To a district attorney, and The
clerk did not know the contents of the letter. OF
had forgotten them. Besides, am hot on trial
nor Is there any complaint made against me, aud
again suggest that such AN allusion was not def
eTentlal ana proper. am, sir, &c,
b. Ii. BRENSTER, Attorney General.