Set­ting the record straight on Daniel Brew­ster

Baltimore Sun - - NATION & WORLD -

In The Bal­ti­more Sun’s edi­to­rial re­count­ing Mary­land’s his­tory of po­lit­i­cal cor­rup­tion, you con­clude with the fi­nal sen­tence that states: “Given Mary­land’s his­tory of pub­lic cor­rup­tion go­ing back to … Daniel B. Brew­ster, the one­time U.S. Sen­a­tor in­dicted 50 years ago for tak­ing bribes…”

I think such a con­clud­ing sen­tence and such a con­clu­sion does not fully and fairly dis­close the com­plete facts of the Brew­ster case (“What Pugh’s con­vic­tion says about An­napo­lis,” Nov. 22).

The clear im­pli­ca­tion in the fi­nal sen­tence is that former Sen­a­tor Brew­ster was cor­rupt. What your edi­to­rial failed to dis­close was that he was unan­i­mously, by a jury of 12, found “not guilty” on all charges of bribery and cor­rup­tion in the above men­tioned in­dict­ment.

In the in­ter­ests of full dis­clo­sure, af­ter five years of lit­i­ga­tion in the courts, my fa­ther did ul­ti­mately plead “Nolo Con­tendere” to a sin­gle count of “Ac­cept­ing an Un­law­ful Gra­tu­ity Without Cor­rupt In­tent” and was fined $10,000.

The Mary­land Court of Ap­peals ruled in the Brew­ster case that, as this of­fense did not in­volve “cor­rupt in­tent” and did not in­volve “moral turpi­tude,” Daniel B. Brew­ster should not be sanc­tioned be­yond the fine im­posed and he was al­lowed to keep his li­cense to prac­tice law which also dis­tin­guishes the Brew­ster case from oth­ers cited in this edi­to­rial.

Thank you for al­low­ing me this op­por­tu­nity to clar­ify the case of Sen­a­tor Brew­ster.

Gerry L. Brew­ster, Cock­eysville

The writer is the son of Daniel B. Brew­ster who rep­re­sented Mary­land in the U.S. Se­nate from 1963 to 1969.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.