The New Orleans bulletin. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1874-1876, 1875-02-06
THE BABCOCKS
AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WAR
Judge Eyans's Decision.

The trial of the case of the State vs.. Alfred
Dupre, John Malay, - Elwood, Ed. Ryan
Joseph McCloskey, c. w. Grandjean, -
Cashen, came up before Judge W. l. Evans,
of the First Municipal Police Court. The
State offered Mr.. Thomas O'Connor as the
first witness, who testified that the accused
were at the fire on Bertrand street, on the
29th of January, using a Babcock Fire Extin.
guisher, one of the large size, and, in accord.
ance with his instructions from the Board oil
Delegates Of the Firemen's Charitable Asso.
citation, he caused the arrest of the accused
for violating ordinance No. 1910, administra.
ton series.
On the cross-erami,sation By Judge Braughn.
The accused were using this Babcock en-
CINE in en- deavoring to extinguish the fire.
They were on the ground before the engines
of the Fire Department.. The accused are
employees of the Board of Underwriters.
They did not impede, or interfere with me in
the discharge of my duties as Chief Engi-
neer.
After the testimony of Mr. O'Connor was
concluded, the State offered Owen Sullivan
and Phil McCabe as witnesses, who all testi-
fed that the Babcock engine was at the fire
before the engines of the Department.
The defense offered testimony, when, after
hearing the arguments OF counsel, Judge
VIM L. Evans rendered the following deci-
sion
The reasons which led to the framing of
this section (No. 24) of this ordinance in
question are very apparent. For, if indie
pendent clubs of tiremen were permitted to
attend fires, they would come in contact with
the regular Fire Department and impair its
efficiency. The consequence of which would
probably be street brawls and disturbances
bet ween the independent clubs and the regu-
lar Firemens Association.
believe that to have been the object which
the Administrators had in view, when this
section was adopted. l do not think they in
tended to say that individuals should remain
idly by, and see their property burn. don't
think that the City Council, or any body,
would assert that individuals shall not pro.
tect their own property from fires, as well as
from burglary or any other danger.
This article partakes of the nature of a
penal law, and as such, it must be construed
strictly. If the accused here are an associa-
ton, ortan organization,for society, or club Of
firemen, this court will find them guilty. If
not, then they cannot be punished under this
ordinance.
The evidence of Mr.. O'Connor shows that
they are the employees of the Board of Under
writer's. There has been no evidence tc
prove that they are an association, other than
as employees Of some principal.
For illustration: Ii the house of Wallace
Co. saw fit to have Babcock engine for the
protection of their stock in trade, and should
instruct their employees when a fire occurred
| to use it, this circumstance would not make
OF them an association, or organized society
or club of firemen. They are the proprietors
and as such, have an interest in protecting
their property. Now, the Underwater com
mands the same privilege.
1t is his property which is endangered, and
| it is his interest to save it from destruction
think he has right to call upon his EN-
ployes to assist him in doing so. These men
am satisfied, are not an association; they are
not an organized club of firemen; they are
simply the employees of the Board of Under
writer's. Therefore, in my opinion they arr
not guilty.
| don't think this ordinance applies in THU
case, either in the letter or in the spirit
therefore, will discharge the prisoners.