The Sunday herald., 1886-11-28

opinion when they were respectively ap-
pointed, to remark that the walker-Arnold
decision is but q single act of their admins
tration, and one occurring rather early in
their experience. TnE SUNDAY HERALD, in
earnestly dissenting from It, does not mean
to extend this censure any further than the
particular case warrants. The original
cause was triae compared to the fuss over
it, and IL would be well il this could subside
as speedily as it arose. The Commissioners
still nave ample opportunity to make their
administration success.
The District Commissioners lost great
opportunity in announcing their decision on
the police scandal. Instead Of devoting
most effort to letting down gently their un-
fortunate appointee, Mr.. Walker, they
should have come out strongly against the
very suggestion of a spy and blackmail sys-
tenn in the Police Department, and used
language that would be warning against
such an offense for all future time. There
seems to be no danger 10 which the police
force is more exposed than that of falling
into the use of espionage as weapon of de-
fense or sslf-aggrandizement. Policemen
need to be reminded constantly that 1t is
their business to keep the peace and pre-
vent crime; not to suspect evil in every
body's private life, and sneak about manu-
featuring scandal out of merely equivocal
acts that may have a perfectly innocent ex-
planation. The business of "shadowing'
public men, and trying to make capital ont
of their actual or alleged lapses from de-
corum, is credibly said to have been the
cause that broke up the former detective
service in disgrace. 1t is impossible to
imagine anything more nauseous and cor
rupting than the habit of dogging the foot
steps of reputable men and women in the
hope of catching them in some complication
that can be used against them, not to pre-
vent crime, but to benefit the vile Peeping
Tom in money or "influence." 1t is tend
ency that should be stamped out in the
Police Department as the worst of plaques.
There have been so-called "police of morals"
in some foreign countries. and they have in
variably proved an abominable mischief.
The "decision'' of the Commissioners is
open to criticism in many respects. They
were trying specific charges made against
Lieutenant Arnold by Major Walker. By
all rules of procedure and common sense
they should have given specific decision on
these charges. Any further action required
As it stands, the remarkable document they
put forth runs about thus: Averdict of "not
"proven" is returned on the charges, but
Lieutenant Arnold is convicted of wholly a
different offense, Tor which he was not on trial,
that's ,ofmaking" IAN infamous and impossible
"(sic) accusation against a prominent though
unnamed official of the Government" and
on this he is dismissed from the force: at the
same time his accuser is virtually condemned
by being allowed to resign; the witnesses for
the defense are then punished "a very dan
gerous approach to intimidation of witnesses)
for testifying as they did; and some of the
witnesses for the prosecution are also pun
ished, while one is rewarded. II anybody
ley, he is welcome to do 80. Since the whole
matter is made to turn on the conflict of tes-
timony, and charges of psrjury are freely
used, it is very unfortunate that all the
Commissioners did not sit when the wit.
nesses were heard, since in such cases the
manner and bearing of men, their exact tones
and emphasis, have always been considered
of the highest Importance in judging theil
credibility. Several passages like the fol
lowing add nothing to the dignity Of the docu
ment, travel entirely outside the testimony
taken, and should have been omitted:
The principal participants, though not all appear
ing in the testimony, are well known TO be malcon
tents and discharged employees OF the District ser
vice, who have seized upon the opportunity I,
avenge themselves and have eagerly and assiduOusl
propagaed the scandal to the four winds Of HEAVIER
through the medium OF the press.
Unfortunately the action of the Commits
sioners in the police cases does not Civ
satisfaction. The general feeling appears Il
be that the heaviest punishment has beeI
visited upon the least guilty. Nine.tenth
of the people think Arnold and Kelly hav'
been badly treated. Equally general is tn,
verdict that Walker was the original ant
chief offender. The elaborate defense will
which the Commissioners accompany thei
acceptance of Walkers resignation was ex
tremely injudicious. II their argument ant
conclusions amount to anything, they shov
that the resignation should not have beer
accepted. They illustrate the profound wis
dom of Lord Mansfeld's advice to the youn
Judge about starting for India. MANSFIELD
told him TO listen to the evidence and decid
as seemed right, but on no account to Civ
any reasons for his decisions. "Ten to on
"your decisions will be right" said tn
veteran Judge, "but II is also ten to one tha
"the reasons you give will be wrong"
AS for Major Walkers contribution to th
literature of the case, 1t is beneath contempt
No evidence whatever is produced TO prov
the existence of the alleged conspirac
against him. The anonymous letters while
fact warnings against the espionage ide
which has proved his downfall. We al
asked to believe that the very persons VIII
were laying trap for Major Walker woul
take the trouble to warn him against falliD
into 1t.
"well, for your favor, Sir, why. give God thank
and make no boast Of III and for your writing al
reading, let that appear when there is no need
such vanity. You are thought mere to be the mo
senseless and lit man for The constable Of Il
watch; therefore bear you the lantern. YC
shall also make no noise Ia the streets; for for u
watch 10 babble and TO talk IL most ioerable aud n
TO be endured. II you meet the prince
the night, you may stay him. Five shillings 10 ol
ont, with any man thai knows the statues, he Ins
stay him: marry, not without the prince be Willin
for Indeed the watch ought 10 offend no man.
Keep your fellows counsel, and your own, aud go'