Lancaster daily intelligencer. [volume] (Lancaster, Pa.) 1864-1928, 1882-11-29
Aauraster .9ntelligencer.
" WEDNESDAY EVENING NOV. 20. lss1

ANtlluoltI DStSLIlS8IItLI>.
EVENING NOV. 20. Issz.
Grammatical Differences.
The New York Sun is amusing in its
of Attorney General
Brewster's action. He cannot do any
thing to entirely please it. 1t cannot
d;sapprove his recommendation to the
president to dismiss the officials who
have embarrassed the Star Route trials,
but it finds something to condemn in the
way he did ii; even though it is only in his
use 0; the English language. Attorney
Geners! Br xster would probably prefer
to be accused Of some grosser oftense
than ignorance of good English, for he
probably prides himself on his mastery of
language, and as an orator of distinction
ought to be beyond reproach in his use
of words. The Sun criticises Brewster
for saying that he had never forgotten
his instruction to prosecute, SO that
the innocent should be acquitted if
clearly innocent, and the guilty should
be punished if clearly guilty." The SIN
doubts whether the president ever in
structed the attorney general 10 see
that the innocent were acquitted only
if clearly innocent, seeing that the
law entities them to acquittal if there
should be any reasonable doubt of their
guilt. So the law does; but if the Sm,
had been disposed to give liberal con-
struction to the presidents alleged in
struction, it would not have been diff
cult for it to conclude that it meant that
the innocent should be acquitted if il
clearly appeared that they ought not to
he convicted under the evidence that
is " clearly innocent" in the sense that
they were not clearly guilty.
Then the Sun comp!a ins of the attor.
ney generals use of the phrase, "the
condign act Of an infamous conspiracy
considering the word "condign " to be
here used "in a novel and unfamiliar
sense" Webster defines I" condign " to
mean observed, merited, suitable >
and perhaps the L" suitable act of an in
famous conspiracy "was very suitable
way to express what the attorney general
was undertaking to say but if the Sun
had been reasonably good natured il
would have forborne its condign con
demnation of Brewster's condign word
especially in view of the condign prais.
due him for the condign punishment t<
which he delivered the Star Route Grim
inals' sympathizers. And if its editor
had written in a thanksgiving spirit b,
would, too, have omitted to abus'
our elegant attorney general fol
speaking of "band of organized
scoundrels," instead of an organized
hand of scoundrels, as the Sun thinks h,
should have expressed it in which judg
ment, however, the San itself fall
under the harrow of hypercritica
spirit; for "band" does no
necessarily imply organization, bu
only union. and union and organi
zatiOn are quite distinct things, as ther
may clearly be union without organiza
tion, and perhaps even organization
without union. An organized band o
scoundrels " means a union of scoun
drels in an organization and a band o
organized scoundrels means apparently
the same thing. 1t will bother even tn
hunaucritjneJ s2nlI::s til one case tn
scoundrels are organized instead of TIL
band, but as the scoundrels are the band
and the scoundrels are organized, tn,
band is organized. IL the consideration
of these distinctions is perplexing, tht
leisure time Of the Thanksgiving
holiday may be given to theil
consideration by the bewildcred reader
But meanwhile we protest against the
pillorying of our distinguished attorne,
general as an orator ignorant of his ma
tive tongue. What Is particularly edi
flying and gratifying about this illus
trious man is his elegance, his nicely
and the punctillious propriety of his de-
pertinent in every particular. To say
that such man does not talk good
English is simply a piece of barbarous
meddlesomeness.