The Evening critic., 1883-04-16

THE action of the Citizens Committee in
asking pay for services which were loudly
proclaimed as being pro bono pablico has, not
unnaturally, excited surprised, not to say in
dignant, comment, and has robbed the
services Of the Committee of that which
gave them their chief value in the eyes of
the community, disinterestedness. We have
no disposition to undervalue these services
Neither do we propose to overvalue them.
To praise and laud the Committee Just now
is to do that most ridiculous ofthings-shout of
before you emerge from the forest. Raised
in the woods, this pioneer maxim was in
stilled in our minds in early youth, and we
have rigidly adhered to it since. We pro-
pose to abide by it in this matter, and
hence postpone our shouting until we know
what we are shouting about For the real
nature of the services of the Committee eau
only be known after the trials of the parties
indicted by the efforts of the Committee,
not before.
However, this is not precisely the phase
of the matter we set out to discuss, but it
is this: Is the Committee entitled to pay
for its services? We do not mean entitled
not the faintest color of right to remuner-
alton from the public Treasury. We mean
entitled to pay as a matter of public policy
and OF abstract justice. Emphatically no
is our opinion, aud in that opinion we are
far from alone. Indeed, the majority SEN
timent OF the community is very strongly
opposed to the Committees claim. The
Sunday Herald yesterday gave some very
cogent reasons why the expenses Of the
Committee should not be saddled upon the
public Treasury. 1t said
That this committee has done the COM
muptty great service is no reason why It
should be repaid the private funds It has vol
unfairly expended. We are totally unable to
see upon what principle the outlay OF public
funds In such q manner could be Justified, /,
There is broad distinction between the OK :
penditure OF private funds, no matter how
good the object or how near the object comes
10 being public service, and the authorized
expenditure OF public funds for the
specific purposes for which they are apprO.
prlated. II the Citizens Committee are 10 be
Reimbursed for their expenditures In expos.
ing the conspiracy OF burglars and detectives.
why would not the managers OF the Associated
Charities have an equally good claim % be
reimbursed the private funds they have ex
pended The object OF the outlay In both
cases has been public one. The writer OF
this and other persons have been In the habit
OF paying private watchman 70 guard their
nc"Sesi Dec1use the police service Is nol
70 DC depended on. Why should they
mol pe repaid the sums they have
EXPENDED for seltprOtection, upon the
ground that u was expended sin the preven.
tion oi crimef Obviously, II the practice Of
repaYing such expenditures be once begun,
there is no end 70 the schemes for the pnblfd
good which might bo undertaken, ali OF which
would have as valid a claim as the Citizens'
Committee 20 saddle the expense Of their en-.
Ierprises upon tho public purse II is 10 be
regretted that wealthy citizens should belittle
the undenlhble service they have rendersd
the public by putting forward so indeiensible
q claim.
Another point may be made here. Some
years ago certain citizens went to the ex,
pense to bring about a change in the gov