The Evening critic. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1881-1885, 1884-03-17

MAJOR DYES explanation of why the
complaint.bools should be sealed volume
in certain cases is one Of the most remarka-
able we have ever heard. II is this
lady moving in the highest circles learns,
on getting up In tho morning, that pleco OF
silvorwaro has disappeared from her pantry.
She Immediately reports to tho police that her
house has been robbed, with description OF
tho property stolen, aud this report Is entered
on tho complalnt-book detective takes hold
OF the case and makes full investigation,
from which II Is ascertaincd tho property is la
pawnshop, and that tho husband Of the lady,
being on n spree, and getting out OF money,
pawned his own property. Gases more or less
akin TO this are happening all the time, whore
great injustice would be done to innocent par
lies by publishing complaints against them
that may be founi upon tho record, and yet,
when examined Into prove to be wholly with
out foundation.
Now, how many cases of this kind have
ever occurred?
But suppose they occurred daily, is that
any reason why the fact that "a lady
moving in the highest circles has reported
that she was robbed should be withheld
from the public2
How were Major Dye. or his officers to
know that the robbery was committed by
the husband when he was on SPREE until
after they had investigated the case?
Does he withhold information of all rob-
berries until after he has ascertained whether
the missing goods were pawned by mem-
ber of the family while on spree2
Suppose Biddy 0'Finuegan, who lives in
Swampoodle, reported some morning that
her milk -cans had been stolen, would Major
Dye withhold the information from the
public until he ascertained whether Teddy
O'Finnegan, who was on q big spree, had
made way with the goods? Or does Major Dye
draw the line at the case of Mrs. Adolphus
Fitzsomething, of the West End, who has
lost her silverware? How is he to know that
Colonel Adolphus Fitzsomething has been
on aspree and pawned the goods until after
he has investigated the case? Could not
sensation bo worked up as we'll in the
O'Finnegan case as in the Fitzsomething
case, and is it not barely possible that tho
OFinnegans and their friends might be as
sensitive to the exposure that might follow
as the Fitzsomethings and their friends
could possibly be2
This explanation is entirely too thin,
Major Dye.
In the daily papers Of last week we find
the following among other items recorded I:
John N. Waters. OF $50 Maryland avenue
northeast, reports that his trunk was broken
open ana $50 stolen therefrom yesterday. O.
W. Parker, OF Adams Express alley, reports
that an overcoat was stolen from his room
Tuesday.
Mary L. Goodwin, colored, Of No. 1922 NJ
street, reports TO the police that $3.50 of the
funds OF the "United Daughters of Hail." OF
which she 10 treasurer, was stolen from her
bedroom, between the dth and 11th insts.
George Murch, OF sos Fifth street southeast,
reports to the police that his house was bur
glariously entered last night and $40 In
money and silk umbrella and gum coat were
stolen.
Mary L. Bowdan, OF 1902 Seventh street, has
reported that her house was entered by thieves
yesterday forenoon and lot OF wearing ap-
parel, valued at $33, carried OFF.
Did Major Dye investigate each of the
above cases to ascertain the possibility that
some member of the family might have
made way with the goods before he allowed
the public to know the fact of the robbery !?
You must try again, Major.