Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1858-07-14
THE CHARGES AGAINST NOBLE J
THOMAS.


THOMAS.
In the Board of Aldermen, on Monday, Mr.
Moore, from the police committee, to whom were
referred the charges made against Noble J.
Thomas, lately nominated for lieutenant of
police, submitted the following report, which
read:
The committee on police, to which was re-
terred the nomination of Noble j. Thomas as a
lieutenant Of police, respectfully report:
That, In the performance of the duty assigned
them, your committee visited the penitentiary
where Mr.. Thomas has been employed for the
last five years, in order to ascertain the opin-
ions held of his department and qualifications
by his associate officers
1t appears that Mr.. Thomas has been acting
as deputy warden of the penitentiary, upon
which officer, in addition to other duties, the
following are deyolved by the printed regula-
JiOns:
In the absence Of the warden, the deputy
warden or such other person as may be directed
tor appoint ted shall be warden pro tess.
The deputy warden shall always be present
at the opening and closing of the prison, and
shall cause the signal bell to be rung for the
officers on the wall to retire; he shall visit the
hospital, cookery, and cells, and inspect them
minutely, at least once day, and see that they
arc clean and in good order; he shall frequently
visit the places of labor and the yards, without
nOtice,) and see that the officers are vigilant
and attentive to their duty, and that the con-
vIcts are diligent and industrious; he shall at
tend TO the convicts' bedding and clothing, and
sec that they are properly changed and in Or
der; lie shall receive reports not otherwise pro-
vided for, and report the same to the warden
Immediately"
In reference to Mr.. Thomass capacity, and
the manner in which he discharged his duties
your committee examined, privately and sepa-
rately, eleven of the officers of the penitentiary
Ot whom four have been associated with Mr.. L .
In that institution for the last five years; two
for the period Of four years; two for the period
Of three years; one for the period of two year;
ono for about ten months; and one. besides his
acquaintance with Mr. T. rs an officer of Il
penientiary, had known him many years pre-
viogay.
Al these persons testified to the regular
habits and uniform sobriety of Mr.. Thomas
the oely qualification being on the part of the
uit1esS last alluded 70, who, having known
Mr.. L. for more than fifteen years, said he had
not heard of his drinking for the last eight
years All the rest expressed a confident be-
lief that since they had known him he had alb
stained altogether from the use of spirituous
or other intoxicating drinks, and several of
them stated that when they had ut different
times invited him TO partake of a social glass
he had always declined their invitation.
One point upon which there was some diver
sity of opinion among the witnesses was in re-
gard to Mr.. ThOmass intercourse with the
prisoners detailed for special duty, and known
as yard hands" such as the steward the
cook, to. Three of the officers interrosated
thought that Mr.. T. had sometimes INDUCED
In improper fam;liariti"s with these several
cOnvicts, but no particular act was specified
except by one witness, who said that he once
saw Mr.. L. strike one of these yard hands in
sport with lath. These witnesses seemed TO
intimate, rather than express an opinion that
familiarity in any degree was inconsistent with
strict discipline. NOi ie Of the remaining eight
witnesses were aware of any imprudence in
this respect by Mr.. T., and thought he had
acted with as much discretion in his inter
course with these yard hands as would any
other considerate person holding the same Off
cial relation towards them. ALI the witnesses
eleven In number, denied any knowledge of
any violation of the rules of the prison by Mr.
/, and they all denied that be had ever PLAYED
with or for the amusement Of any Of the pris-
Oners.
NORe of the witnesses impeached the deci-
sion or courage of Mr.. Thomas; they generally
bore testimony to the civility of his deport-
ment; neither OF them questioned his human
lty; they all, except two, accorded him the
credit OF being an esicient officer; one of these
two tho sht him - toierably sffi;i n" and the
other deemed him = at times very efficient; at
other times not and they all represented
him as having been punctual in the discharge
Of his duties
With thisgenerally consistent testimony from
those who have had daily opportunities for some
years past Of observing Mr.. Thomas.s conduct
your committee did not think it necessary TO
make inquiry in any other quarter. Before
leaving the penitentiary. however, they had
the curiosity TO examine the record to see who
had recommended Mr.. Thomas more than five
years ago as an officer of that institution, and
they found their names to be as follows j IL
Hoover, John W. Forney. James a. Berret,
GeOrge Parker, John W. Maury, W. W Cur
ran. and Charles ). Wallach.
As respects the report that Mr.. Thomas has
been frequently an inmate of the watch house,
members Of the committee made inquiry of the
Chief of Police, and were informed that the
books of the watch house were not in possession
of that officer, but he knew of Mr. It's having
been conveyed to the watch house only upon
oEe occasion for disOrderly conduct, which was
about fifteen years ago