Daily Los Angeles herald., 1879-05-11
Card from Officer Roche.

EDITOR HERALD: The card pub.
lished by George n. Stansfeld in
last evenings Express does me
great Injustice He begins with
statement that he refrained from
explaining the cifcumstance Of his
late trouble, and the frivolous ma
ture of the persecution to which he
has been subjected, until the charge
OF arson, which was preferred
against him, was dismissed on the
recommendation of the District
Attorney; and now he feels it due
to himself and the public at large
to make few statements in re-
gard to that trouble and the cir
cumstances attending its inaugu-
ration. But it appears to me that
Stansheld has something else in
view, for I cannot see how it Is due
to the public at large to publish
false charges against HE.
After the second fire occurred at
his residence. | was placed by the
Chief of Police in charge of the
house and damaged furniture, and
little after daylight Stansfield
appeared on the premises and be-
gan to overhaul the furniture which
was piled on the street, when, ac-
cOrding to my instructions, I for.
bade him to handle any of the prop
erty in my charge. He said he was
insured anyway, and walked to-
wards the house. L followed him,
and when in one of the rooms he
disc ,vered looking-glass hanging
on the wall he took it down, threw
1t on the floor, broke aud kicked 1t.
then arrested him, not for arson,
but for destroying property.
In regard to the charge of ungen-
tlemanlike conduct and positive
rudeness toward his wife, the err
cumstancos were a. follows: She
began to overhaul the furniture, mot
quite In as rude a manner as Stans-
field, but in manner that justified
me in politely telling her to wait
until the insurance agent came
there and examined the property.
l did not order her from the prem
ises, as stated In Stansfeld's card.
Stansfield also states that the OBJ
ject of his card was to secure others
immunity from unjust persecution
by officers who, in the discharge of
their duties, are influenced by mo-
tives of vindictiveness, national
animosity, ora desire for pecuniary
reward, rather than a strict sense
of duty rs public officers.
My arrest of Stansfield was not
through a motive of vindlctiveness,
because l never saw him to know
him before the fire occurred, but it
was his own vindictiveness towards
the looking glass that prompted me
to sense of my duty as an officer.
1t could not be national animosity
either, because l am q native of
| New York State, and l do not
know where he halls from. Nor
could it be desire for pecuniary
reward that prompted me, because
the insurance companies have dis
continued rewards. They have dis
covered that most men who are go
vicious as to burn and destroy other
peopieS property generaiiy take
pains to also destroy positive or di.
rect evidence.
But as Stansfield feels it due to
himself and the public at large to
make q few statements, why not
tell the truth, or why not state to
the public (what must interest
them) the circumstances Of his
house being on fire 50 often, and
also the last house burned being on
fire twice the night before I arrest
ed him for destroying property. 1
did not arrest Stansfield on hearing
but for what saw myself. The only
conclusion l draw from hearing Is
that to be silent is duty that
Stansfield owes to himself and
friends. But when he ISLANDERS me
in connection with what he thinks
he owes to the public, l owe myself
and the public statement OF the
truth. Therefore l trust you will
insert this card.
Respectfully yours,
EDWARD J. ROCHE.
LIS Angeles, May 10th, 1879.