The Evening critic., 1883-01-11
what the crimes" Says.

Even the vile and venal New York Times
cannot stomach Brewster's wanton, not to say
corrupt, extravaganza and neglect OF the pub
lie business. Yesterday It published the fol-
lowing article:
Nothing is more closely watched In financial
circles than the telegraph litigation, and
nothing has excited more comment than the
course OF United States Attorney
Brewster in neglecting State business to con-
Company in Pennsylvania. A prominent and
well-informed operator In Wall street, discus
sing the matter yesterday, referred TO section
1866 Of the Revised Statutes, which says that
compensation shall be allowed to no person
except districtatforneys and assistant dis
trict-attorneys for services as attorney or
counselor In any Department of the Gov.
ernment unless specially authorized by
law, and -, then only on the certih.
services were actually rendered, and that they
could not be performed by the Attorney.G Gem
oral or SOllcitor-General or the officers Of the
Before Mr.. Brewster became Attorney General,
said the operator, continuing his comments,
which took the shape OF a, criticism, he was
Telegraph Company In Pennsylvania. When
the day arrived for the company to show cause
why Its charter should not be vacated for vio-
l8tion of the Constitution and statutes Of Penn
sylvania by absorbing competing telegraph
lines in Philadelphia, Mr.. Brewster ap.
peared as counsel for the Western Onion.
another day should be fixed for a hearing,
which was done. When the hearing took
place MT. BreWbtef appeared anu muue an
argument In behalf OF the Western Union, and,
as reported in the newspapers, intimated TO
the Attorney General OF Pennsylvania that
while the charges against the company were
true the State was without remedy. This was
remarkable statement in view of the fact
that not only did the constitution of 1878
prohibit the absorption OF competing telegraph
lines either by consolidation, lease, or control
by holdings of stock, but the statutes of 1874
likewise prohibited Il. Eminent counsel said
that while the constitution and statutes pro-
hibited such absorption they might not IN
specific terms impose penalty, yet the at
tempt 10 do an act which was prohibited be
came misdemeanor, and could be punished at
common law by the very practical means OF
entoining the performance of any further act
In that State, or the enjoyment OF the property
by transactlng business Herewith. In other
words, the property could be put In the hands
OF a receiver and sold. But, continued the
operator, this was not tho most serious matter
in connection with this particular case. The
presence OF Mr.. Brewster on that occasion was
public scandal. 1t was not litigation In
which MIR. Brewster had been previously en-
gagged, nor concerning which he was tho only
counsel advised. In that event there might
have boon an apparent necessity for him to
assist In litigation already begun, and with
| which he was especially conyersant. This
| excuse, however, could not be pleaded
| duties as to make 1t impossible for him 70 ap-
| pear personally in the Star-Route cases, when
| the honor and interest OF the Government
| were concerned, and allowed the duty OF pros
| ecuting those cases TO devolye upon outside
| counsel specially employed at large expense,
| yet he still found 1t consonant with the dig
nifty OF his ofllce and the obligations of the
| government 10 appear as the private counsel
OF the Western Union Telegraph Company Ia
a case not involving a contract but one of
defiance Of tho Constitution aud laws OF his
| own State, This, too, in the face OF the stat.
utes Of the United States.