The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-07-19

and regulations are ridi ulous and oppressive N
that q portion of the lat. order imposei an e.;
D. Dsive and fsDtsstcal uniform, this public meet
log was held. Thee assertions demonstrate thf
spirit Of, and obviously give character TO the act
connected with the IL is clear these proeeedings
manifested spirit Of nsuojeanasos, defiance OF
ruIrf-aDd the effect OF them, the intention Of tho
authors bad teen successful. would probably have
been paralysis ard prostraton Of all order and
authority IN the department. and an end Of its dis
cipline and efficiency.
Such being the case. 1t remains to consider
wht Their the proofs show that the defend ants any
OF them, participated in these proceedings. The
specification az IN Mr.. Peterson s that he employed
John Gardiner TO erect the stand in the Park Tor The
ue OF the public meeting 70 protest against the &C.
ton OF the Commissioners in Imposing an xDensiyo
and iaDtastical uniform-'hereby creating insnbor-
dination and melting to violation Of the discipline
OF the department. The specifications respectively
against NJ Beach, Sksats, and Steele, are "a
the effect rs to M. Beach. that he acted a. chair
ed as secretaries Of meeting Of policemen, where
the Commissioners Of Police were held up 10 ridieule
and contempt. Az to Messrs. Beach and Steele they
allowed notice in the public newspapers under
their names, respectively, for q public meeting, to
take into consideration the imposing Of an expen-
sive and fantastical unifO,m by the Commissioners
Of Police; and to Mr. Sksais, that he caused the
notice to be Published In the newspapers under hia
memU6rB
pertinent to insubordinstion and violation Of the
discipline Of the departmsD Mt $3.50.
MI. Gardiner testihes that Mr.. Peterson employed
him 70 erect the stand for the purpose Of holding
the platform should be erec,ed. That he (Grdiaer)
knew NO other person In the premises, and expected
TO receive his pay from Mr. Peterson. Mr.. Peterson
admits that be was one Of tue committee appointed
to call the meeting In the Park and that he had the
stand in the Park erected for tnat purpose or the
active participation Of Mr. Peterson IN these pro-
ceedings there cannot, therefore, be any doubt.
Mr.. Beech admits that he acted as chairman, and
Hessrs Steele and Skaats severally admit that they
acted as secittslies. and all admit that they
were present at the meeting In the Bowery. Mr..
Steele sdmits that n that meeting committee Was
appointed to get up the meeting in the Park. Mr..
6kaats admits this also, and that he caused the pro-
ceedings Of the Bowery meeting TO be published,
and added the names Of the officers Of that meeting
without consulting the others Of them. Mr.. Beach
denies that he authorized bis name to be attached
to the published proceedings, or that he signed the
proceedings. He admits t,at the meeting In the
Park wac spoken Of at the Bowery meeting, but
denies that any committee was appointed for that
purpose. he says the result Of that meeting prin-
cipally was to appoint committee to wait upon the
Commissioners In regard to the uniform. Il Ii sin
guar that up to this time the committee asserted 70
have been appointed 80 to do have hot waited npon
the Commissioners, or communicated with them. In
relation to the appointment OF committee to make
arrangements for meeting In the Park, Mr.. Beach
is at issue with the other defendants.
The proceedings Of the Bowery meeting as pub
liahed in the Sun newspaper as above mentioned,
and introduced by the counsel Of all the defendants
a. correct, proves that such q committee to mako
arrangements for the meeting in the Park, was ap-
pointed ut the Bos cry meeting. How then can Mr..
Beach the presiding officer at that meeting, be ig-
norant Of the fact?
Mr.. Steele denies that he authorized his name to
be set to the published proceedings Of the Bowery
meeting.
Mr.. skaats, by his publication of the proceedings
q tho Bowery meeting, understood he had implied,
II not express, authority from Messrs. Beach aud
Steele to make the publication and append their
names, as well AZ his own, TO 1t. Il does appear
that before the charge was made they disavowed
such authority. Why did they lot do 10 before2
II was suggested In behalf Of the defendants that
neither Of the specifications or charges under which
partnent. Il is not in my judgment necessary that
such should be the case, for 1t cannot be that every
act Of dereliction can be provided for specially ny
special rule.
Every act which is an offence at law-any act
which IL q violation OF public order Of public duty
of due subordination and disci pliue-of rightful
and necessary respect for the officers and members
Of the department, and Of lawful orders-every act
OF disobe dience or attempt and to cause disobed-
ence to these orders, whether or not specified in
the rules, is an offence cognizable by the Com
nisfioDers, ano, by their duty, they are bound to
take notice OF IT, Every member OF the force has
in charge III some degree the maintenance OF order
and lawful authority. If, then, by him that autho-
rity can be violated with IMMUNITY, where can pro-
lection be foundl
consider that it is established that q meeting of
policemen was held at the tire AMI place In the
Bowcry, as mentioned 10 the specif :ation, AMI
that the defen dants participated In tho pro-
ceedirgs Of that meeting, and that Mr. Beach
presided as chairman. aud Messrs. Skaats aaf
Steele acted IA secretaries. That q committee
was then and there appointed tn make awange-
men's for meeting 10 The Park, of which com
mittee Mr. Peterson was member; and that, AZ
such member, he employed Mr. Gardiner to, and the
he In lark fnr n
meeting. That the publication Of the proceedings
in the BoweIy was made az charged, and that the
meeting did teke place; that sll these proceediDgs,
taken together, demonstrate a deliberate int nj tn
incite and create Dsubor dnatiop, and TO resist th
lawful authority u the officers Of the department.
an intent to impair the discipline of the department
to accomplish measures Inconsistent with ~ use
fitness and efficiency, aud were meant TO effect such
intent. That the participation in these proceedings
OF each OF these defendants is also establssed; and
The charge against each ~ them, except 20 much ~
alleges that at the meeting in the Bowery the Con-.
nisslonerswere held np to contempt, Ii proven.
Bound rs am to maintain the integrity and lis-
clrline oil The department grave and deliberate acts
OF INSTRUMENTATION, such as are established against
these respondents. cannot be justly overlooked. IL
such acts be allowed to pass with mpunity then
indeed would The trust which the community hss
put In The Commissioners be found misplaced, and
the subordn ates would become the CONTROLLERS Of this
brancn OF the city government. The design u
creating tie commission would be defe ated aud tho
generous compensation granted by the city TO the
force for its services would fail to produce that pro
lection for which IT IL given.
Icannot resist the conclusion that the public SER
vice requires that the defendants be removed from
Office. (Sicned.) r. n. TrLoU.
This was followed by technical Judgment dir
missing policemen william Peterson, Ezra Beach,
Isaac B. Skaats, and Daniel =. Steele, from tho
Police Department. Judge Beebe dissented frMl
the decisien Of the Mayor end Recorder, aud will in
few days deverthe written reas ons Of his dIssenx
ANrcrOTE OF SANTA ANNA--Extract from pr.
vate letter receive I'm London Mexico MAY 80. 4