The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1884-04-25

Hearing Before the AIdorlncn-TcstimOny
Only Partially Presented Adjournment
GymaxxaaL

Only Partially Presented journment
Granted.
A tremendous crowd thronged the Alder
mems chamber last evening Though the
audience was large and somewhat noisy, the
men who composed it were evidently much
interested in the proceedings Only once did
the crowd make a serious disturbance, and
this was promptly quelled by a threat to clear
the room if it was repeated. The settees had
hard time of it, however, and three of them
were sadly demoralized Only part of the
testimony to sustain the charges was put in,
and a continuance was granted until next
tuesday night on the urgent request OF the
respondents counsel, Hons VIM. L. Putnam
and @. w. Goddard.
THE HEARING
At 7.45 p. m. His Honor, Mayor King, called
the board to order and said they had been
called together to give attention to the follow
ing communication. The charges against the
Marshal were then read. The Mayor con-
tinued that he had summoned witnesses, and
that the hearing might be entirely by the
aldermen. he called the chairman of the
board, Alderman Hawkes., to the chair.
Mr.. Looney was called upon to open the
case, but yielded to allow Judge Goddard to
make motion. The judge said that as coun-
sci for the respondent he wished to call atten-
ton to certain facts as the basis of a motion.
The respondent has been in the service four
teen months, and more than six weeks of the
present year. 1t does not appear that the
charges are recent, and the first notice
respondent had of proceedings against
Inn last nlo- afA
but charges were then furnished.
The next morning he called at the Clerks
office and procured copy of the charges. So
he has had but three days given him. Also
that by serious misfortune, on Sunday last
| he lost his mother-in.law, with whom he lived,
| who died after painful illness of four weeks,
and although the notice of her death appeared
| in the papers, His Honor evidently did not
| see it. The funeral occurred yesterday after
| noon, and not until this morning was he able
| to attend to this matter. Then he had an in.
tsrview with counsel, but very brief one. as
| he himself was engaged in the Su-
preme Court during the day; SO that
himself and counsel are unable to pro-
coed in matter of this kind, involving
| the integrity of the City Marshal, and his fu-
| ture exclusion from every Office of trust or
| profit. In SO grave matter it is highly i'm
portant that the respondent and his counsel
| should have time to meet these charges. 1t is
| important that the respondent, and his coun-
| sci, at every stage of this hearing should have
| fair opportunity that there may be no mis-
| apprehension in the matter, that the public
| should see he had a fair chance to meet the
| charges against him, that justice may
seem to have been done. The charges are
numerous and on widely different subjects.
The first is to the very last degree generally
comprehensive, and Of such character as to
| be almost impossible to meet. The first charge
was read by counsel and commented upon as
| not specifying a single offence committed dur
| ing the past fourteen months. 1t is unreason-
| able to call man from house of bereave-
| ment to meet such charge in single day. If
| the City Solicitor regards this charge as fair
one we acquiesce, but certainly its vagueness
is sufficient cause for delay. The seventh
| specification is vague and indefinite, and
| charges no offence, at least one which could be
| detected on any reasonable scrutiny. This
| taken in connection with charges and seem
| TO insinuate without charging something of
| not particularize any offence. We have
no fault to find with it save that if he
| may deem it proper to proceed under it time
should be given. As nothing in these
| charges seems to be of late date, one dating
| back to April, one to June, one I'd September,
| one to December, and one to February, it does
not seem necessary that anything should be
| done with improper haste. A man cannot be
brought! into our Municipal Court without
weeks notice, and their Jurisdiction is but for
| 800. No man can be put on trial without
proper notice and one days notice only would
/ be an outrage on the rights of citizen of this
| free government. As this respondent is put on
trial under charges involving his honor and in
| tegrity, subjecting him to the punishment of a
felony If two of these charges be sustained haste
is certainly uncalled for. So in view of these
considerations, which he thought would COM
mend themselves to the judgment of the board
| he felt himself warranted in moving that this
| affair be continued one week. As professional
| men who have charge of the interests of our
| client, we are obliged to say that the shortest
| time in which we think it possible to meet
| these charges is one week, and he respectfully
moved a continuance to Thursday night,
| May 1.
| City Solicitor Looney said that he did not
wish to be unjust to the Marshal. The law
under which we are acting passed in 1877, and
under it there have been several hearings In
none of them, he believed, had more notice
| been given than in this case. Last year not
even days notice was given, no charges pre-
| ferred, and the men called up without notice.
| -Four days notice have been given the Mar
| shall. With relation to the first and seventh
4 charges, the heart of the charges are in the
other five. He was not prosecuting officer,
| but was here simply to conduct the investiga-
| ton for the aldermen. Witnesses have been
| summoned, and this very day two of them
| have been approached by parties for the pur.
pose of getting them out of this city. 1t has
| been matter of some trouble and expense to
procure the attendance of the witnesses. He
| insieted that the hearing should go on, and af-
| ter their evidence was presented, if the Mar
| shall wished a continuance he would not object
| to granting it.
| Chairman Hawkes. submitted the matter to
| the board for their decision.
| 1t was moved by Alderman Noyes that the
| board retire and deliberate, and the motion
| prevailed.
The aldermen retired to the private room of
| and the Chair stated that the board had decid-
| ed to proceed with the case.
THE TESTIMONY.
| The witnesses were then called and sworn
| by City Clerk Burgess
The first witness was Mr. L. G. Wade. His
| testimony was that he was present in the DO
| licemen's room when Marshal Andrews adj
| dressed the police force, and gave report of
| his remarks at tn at time. The paper contain
ing the report of this speech was offered in ev-
| idence, and Mr.. Putnam objected as this
was public transaction, and the Marshal was
| guilty of malfeasance in office, and known to
| the last city government. This was not trying
the Marshal but the previous city government.
| (Cheering.)
Alderman Noyes moved that the police clear
| the room, and the motion was seconded
Alderman Gallagher said this was not pri-
| vate hearing, star chamber proceeding
| He thought the citizens of this city had a
| right to be present.
Mr.. Putnam said he did not speak to the au-
| dience but to the aldermen, and had no desire
| to belittle the hearing.
Alderman Noyes withdrew his motion.
Mr.. Looney said he knew the objection
would be offered, but because the former may
or had violated his oath of office it was not the
duty of this board of aldermen to continue in