, 1873-07-13

IaFk. 4AGheJ Hhs cuIlIHoucGu " tuo DuAIA u
Police on Friday evening. No charges wore pro-
ferred. It was sort Of interview botwoon tho
Commissioners, Capt. Hickey, and suporintond-
Ont Washburn. Tho purpose Of the Doard-or
OF a majority Of them-waa to find out all
about tho negotiations which lod to tho TO-
turn of the stolen jewelry to Lizzie
Moore on tho payment of certain amount
Of money. It waB tho purpose Of Capt.
Hickey to toll nothing at all about II. Tho most
ho would do WAS to make general denial that
no had evor received any money from Lizzie
Alooro-probably intonded to moan that he per-
sonally nevor accepted money from her. For tho
rosk, he claimed that ho had passed. his word Of
honor not to reveal tho nnmes of tho parties who
returned tho property md subsequent quos-
tfoning utterly failod to elicit anything
from him other in regard to tho persons
who returned tho property or tho oirculn-
stances under which tho negotiation for
tho return vas conducted. He was what
Lucotto Myors detained In tho Goodrich mur-
dor case, doc1arod herself to bo,-"A parrot
that never talks" Capt. Hickey chattorcd
good deal, but ho gave absolutely no informa-
tion. Flo claimed that his word of honor waa
Is binding upon him as Lis oath Of offico, and
failed to appreciate the fact TINT panHing his
word Of honor to conceal transaction that was
In fagrant violation Of tho ruloa Of tho Police
Department, I'll vol as Of common morality was
itself violation Of his dutos Of Office If lie had
Of conscience, 1t would seem that ho might just
as reasonably recall lis word Of honor gyon to
thieves or tho associates OF thloyos. Capt.
Hickey did not tako tlis view Of it.
The points Of defense which Hickey has
endoavored thus far to make out aro ~ That
lao Ind tho authority OF tho Superintendent for
his action (2) that there raa nothing wrong in
dokering for tho roturn Of stolon property whom
tho thieves worc undor arroat; and (o) that it
has been the custom Of the Police Department,
which ho (Hickey) had followed frequently,
to negotiate. FOR stolen property. These points
aro al1 controyerted by tho evidence, or by law.
In regard to the first thoro is a fiat contradiction
between Hickey and Washburn. Hickey snys
that he talked to tho Superintendent about tho
case, aaa told him that ho thought ho could &c.
cure tho roturn Of Lizzlo Moores property in
sscret way, and tho Superintendent told him to
do it. Washburn says that tliB ia not
true. AS botween Hickey and Waahburn,
tho public will prefor to believe tic latter.
In regard to tho second point,-that thoro VAS
nothing wrong in negotiating for the property
aftor tho thieves wero under arreat,-it il a
very suspicious circumstance TINT only ono
OF the three thieves arrested was brought
to trial; that thoro WAS nobody to proso-
cuto the casos except Capt. Hickey, and
TINT tho "fenco" was kept in tho back
ground all tic time. Tho return OF the property
socmR to have been mndo nbout tho ti1no thu
thieves undor arrest wcro virtually permitted to
escape. As to tho aaaortion that this cnee ia but
ono Of q large number, and that it has boon tho
practice of tho Police Department to ncgotiato
for tho roturn of stolen property, 1t oos not, IL
true, help Capt. Hickoy's case. II Hickey and
other mombera Of the police force havo been
in tho habit OF treating with thieves, "foncos,"
and thor go-botweens, such treaties must hayo
boon made on tho baa!s Of some quid
pro qno-porlaps not exactly compromising
felony, but next door to TINT. It moods no
argument to chow that such q practice Ia oslcu-
lated to encourage thieves and promote robbor-
les. Tho police forco Is not maintained at u
largo public expense for this purposo, md tho
practice can DO best broken up by the dismissal
Of Capt. Hickey for Ills slare in it.
Though Hickey WAS very guarded in his COM
m'lnications, he did not full to commit hilnsolf
broadly IN one instance. Ho aayH that lo nogo.
tatod for Lizzie Mooroa property because
ho came to tho conclusion tlat 1t gaB
better to get tho property back than to
lot 1t bo taken away from tho city and bo do.
atroycd. Further on in tho conversation 10 ad-
mits that 1t WAS hia understanding tint tho
property had been taken away from tho city.
Lizzie Moore, it will DO remembered, sworo bo-
fore tho Grand Jury tlat Hickey represented to
lor that the property was In Pittsburgh, and
rcAl to hor letter concerning 1t which purportod
to come from pawnbroker In that city. Tho
solf-contradiotion Of Hickey in this ro-
apnct Ii not calculated to giyo Ills "word
OF honor" tho credit which he Ia anxious
to eHtablia for It by refusing to reveal tho cir
onlnstancos Of lia negotiation for the return of
Htolon property. curious fonturo Of tile inter-
viow Of last Friday was that Commissioner el,or-
idan spoke Of tho informant who led 10 tho din.
coyory OF tho stolon jowolry, as though ho know
him, saying TINT he Qho informanD is " "a TO-
specablo u man M tllore Ia in tho City Of CHI
cago." Can 1t be that Commissioner Sheridan
roferg to tho " fonos In this caao who haH been
indicted by tho Grand jury And, whether thts
Ia tho same porson Or not. Is It not tho