New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1855-06-19

ossnf sSsons ones It fchows that I'M. extent at
s ne Council .ne5 ., .sS hs the
,p 81 the Legislature In tie pAaso Of th" SCI 'ns' bs
sssd b. shss ss q Police
~, 20 dc Mayer once at ses every SIX MONTE NM ,em.tin
The rH s.esoS may oOts the welfJe and efficiency Of
Se wD Dsh Ssse. sS,cs 70 ran., 20 he
Council within Eve days sf or he receives ~ n tne
Con mon ,nsr session thereafter accompanying it
rem srks and suggestions as ne the Mayor may es
.P,OIs myos Council should be Kept advised Of the
.e r working Of the Department that abuses might Be
coz e o, ordinances which the Common Council may have
the enact or b aPpns 70 ns Lss o sd'
bsSe no eoubi eefore that was competent 10Y ehe
se and condition Police Department 70 ina5ire re-
specue any frauds corruption and generally 20 ITO
~ conduct add management Such wss The aanTe o. me o
sin ref RED 20 this COMMITTEE and under bey had Tue
isht % exsne Witnesses and was the duty OF tse witnesses
env question falling within the object and purpose OF
TO- opticp The tv questions asked Webster had refer
epee bis nativity, aud The "itTsss 49, ic
yant The Committee directed TO inquire or investigate
;, md the manner IN which had been conducted.
ard they were confined that subject and could not enter
he recn. composing Police Department would would
OF w suliect OF inquiry the part Of the Com.
ths Il WIS embraced In the resolution referred 70 the Com
.n,,ee Bu this witness refused 20 other question
,hs Cemnte might hna refusal entirely antsble
and him be proceeded against for con-
had been upsD Police and what Ward he attached to
all Of which questions he should have ssweIed he was
Other country much might be eoaprehended under this
rosbe TO ude Of upon OF the question
and th think that II should have been answered If 1t
spv other county Of infamous crime, though that
cIsumssDce would not disquaify him under the oct OF
Ie59 from serving Policeman, the popney Of appon'-
ips sueh persons misht very well be taken int consdera
%odifestons changes in the existing law This wit
ness refused to any question the Commit
same position as the witness Webster The respondent Nc
he asked Elk questions al Of which should have been
bis suet Police Department the salary be and
.lsv II was NOT yery material inquire wba. oc, he hold
or at saay received both fcts could be ascaned st
duties and whether received compensation above
he y were PGs 81 an are not densS b be Police
law that he required to perform oil sch duties as
of Supervisors appointment Is made with the approval
ofths Board Of Aldermen In his case therefore these injuries
received in virtue Of his position any copenaon beyond
resoution directing them 10 inquire 70 the
N when hen sfed whether he bad paid 500 to 81 90
from the dospoand surplus since tss ss. @eeRs
money in his hands 80 long This was a sgsec, especially
an requiring muzzng of dogs while abroad in the
pobe under penalties and authorizing the kali
he srpoinmsnt By MsysT q fixed rae q
asi n ts Streets orSnaaces chap Xvi si No pro-
vnop been made for impoundng them and the Mayor
had ssisbhed pound and inusted the charge of it
the Police Department IL competent for the Common
Council whole subject under c0usderation
an ordinance establishing pound under such regulations
was regulated managed the Police Department
legitimate and proper subject OF inquiry The remaining
asked Of Nackear what disposition had been
made black trunk ed locked that ved
Office ofhe Chief Of Police some time pre- yous and which
This within the
y,soutiou inquiry and should have been answered. Ii
due Mr. heckear observe that like the other
Two he refused questions having refer
the conduct and manesen OF the Police Departments
not he his affidavit from unwingnes TO
full perfect of all his proceedings and
about inquired Of and Of his whole conduct since he
b co ected with the Police Department but because
pa advice he that the Board Of Aldermen
or their Conn had lawful right authority make
spch inquiry. This objection he DterpOsed the
en bis examination and instead OF specific refusal
answer each particular question he relied throughout this
general obe He further firth at0rdng
enancs the objection be made, that Of the three
prisug the Committee dissened from all its
questions propounded 20 the wit1es Much
has been iad In the discussion Of the about the
of this nvesgation-the manner In which has been
Conducted the motives which led q it. But the only
application whether the Board
Aldermen had the right and whether the questions put by the
Comm competent under the resolution reerTed to
them opinion that the Board had the right and 1t
involved Of Discretionary legislative power the
In which the Board its COMMITTEE have used the dis
matter
reviewed here The rsht Of the Committee being deter
An order therefore, will simply be
they appear the meeting o. Committee and
he ,smned touching embraced by the resolution
Of the l5h Of March, lass, receiving notice from the
Chairman the Committee of the time of its sitting
they attending relse testify
attachment VIII be granted for that refusal and for refusing
The questions already ropounasd 10 hem, and which
have been determined TO lie proper