Evening star., 1886-11-26

III - itSSuIcss " t1dt decision Oh tDe
Commissioners in the police scandal has been
received with general surprise ana no little
disfIyOr. The most that can be said in behalf
OF the action OF the Commissioners is that il
roots ont from the force all those who have
been most directly mixed up in the scandal
They have cleared their own skirts
quite efiectuaIlly of any charge of coantcnancing
any schemes OF espionage upon congressman,
but the process by which they have reached
this result seems 10 bc neither just io ici.I nor
consequential Ii Major WALKER WAS innocent,
they say, of thc charges sworn to against
him by Ii"iii. Arnold and Lieut.. Kelly. then
they should not have accepted his resignation.
And il he was innocent, tiicn Lieuts. Arnold
and Kelly pcrjufcd themselves in their testi-
mony and should have been dealt with for per-
jury. Bat the Commissioners seem 10 admit
that their sworn testimony against Walker was
true by alleging that the statements Arnold
and Kelly made 10 them contradictory to that
testimony were Gllse.
On one pUiIt there seems TO be pretty gen.
eral agreement in the public Iind, and that is
that Major Walker, however excellent his in
tentions was wholly unqualified for the posi-
tion of Superintendent OF Police. The Commis-
sioners in replacing hiEi will doubtless take
heed from their present lesson and be careful
not to appoint any one for whom the ties of
personal friendship or intimate relations ofany
sort could possibly suggest biased f;svors. The
chief OF police should be as entirely snbjcct to
their strict and impartial control rs any private
on the force.
A nice question Of etiquette is suggested by
the scene which occurred il the late home of
ex-Prosident Arthur. wlen Mr. Blaine met
Senator Edmnnds face 10 EIce lof the first time
since the publication o. = letter in which Mr..
Edmunds seem;l 10 reflect disparagingly upon
some unspCcilisd Incident in Mr.. RlaiEc's Ca
rcer. Was MIR. Blaine justified, first, liz assuIn.
ing that Mr. EdInunds mad authorized tho pub
Gcation of the letter: Was he. indeed, justified
in assuming Mr.. Edmund's authorship of that
letter until positive admission from the Sena-
tor, or his silence tor y considerable period,
practically settled all doubt on the subject:
Finally. is il quite according To the recognized
social code TO give the cut direct to ones worst
enemy under third persons roof, and es-
peciaily on occasion o: mourning, when any
marked departure from the usual amenities
must be painful 10 the friend; of the dead who
witness II:
Mr. Edmunds on his part, nay have erred in
greeting Nr. Blaine with more efIusiveness
than was necessary. On thiG point 1t is hard to
pass Judgment. because the reports OF the en-
counter differ in an essential particular. II, as
one story has il, Mr. Edmuuds was as iEdiS-
posed as Mr.. Blaine 10 exchange any courtesies,
but was forced into uncomfortable position
by 4 formal presentation. he could not very
well have avoided making such advances as
are common among gentlemen in cases of this
sort. III, on the other hand, be voluntarily left
his place on . sofa and pressed forward to hold
out his hand 10 Mr.. Blaine, he quite exceeded
the demands of etiquette.
1t vas very unfortunate meeting from what
ever point OF view We look AT il. Mr.. Blaine
probably yielded TO a natural impulse when he
refused To hold any intercourse with a person
who had, by Implication, cast aspersions on his
Character; although an exchange OF the Gus
tomary civilites between man 10 man in such
place as that where Messrs. Blaine & Ed
nlunds met would not have necessitated the
slightest sign Of recognition elsewhere. The
person most TO be blamed, perhaps for allowing
tine disagreeable thing to happen was he who.
with deficient tact and In manifest ignorance of
the proprieties. insisted upon introducing two
gentlemen who had sat for several years elbow
TO elbow in the cham ber OF the United States
Senate.