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

thing to that effect, he did not rememember
Just the words. That he gave Mr.. Andrews
80 that night. thai he asked him for an en-
yelope, and Mr.. Andrews took one from the
drawer in his desk, and that he, (Sullivan),
put the money inb it, and that the week after
the Fourth of JUL he gave him $25 more.
S.-Whether Q; not you were ever prosecu-
ted on that case?
A.-No, sir.
Q.-Do you swear positively, Mr.. Sullivan,
that at two different times you gave Marshal
Andrews for stopping the prosecution of that
action $25 at each timer
A.-Yes, sir, do
Q.-And that the case was never prosecuted?
A.--No, sir.
On croSs-examination Sullivan testified that
he also gave Mr.. Andrews $50 last New
Years day, ant $50 two weeks ago Tuesday
last, making $50 which he had paid to him.
Inc question was asked the witness il he
voted Tor MIR. King and the Republican alder
man Tor ward Jour last spring, and was OBJ
yected to by Mr.. looney upon the ground that
IL was an attempt to turn the matter into
pohlcal night, sand that it did not have any
tnlng 70 40 with this case which ticket Sulli-
van voted, although he happened to be elected
to the City Council upon the Democratic
ticket, and he very respectfully entered his
objection to questions of this kind.
Mr.. Putnam said that he should be a very
unwise counsellor and adviser to his client 10
undertake to give this hearing a political
term when he knew from the outset that unon
that issue he should lose his case five to two.
Inat ne did not propose to give this hearing
any such term, bat that he proposed in his ex-
animation OF Mr.. Sullivan to proceed upon
What ne regarded as sound and correct
theory, and which he believed would be 40
regarded by the gentlemen of the board; that
when he put his question as to whether Mr.,
Sullivan had voied for Mr.. King or whether
he had voted for Mr.. Desiring, whether he voted
tho Republican ticket, he did not do so
with the intention of making any reflection
upon any party or persons, because he had
enough to do with people employed in the
business in which Mr.. Sullivan is emploved ia
know that when they vote for a Democrat or
Republican they do not vote upon principle
because they have any special regard for this
Republican or that Democrat, but be did want
to take this thing right square. Here is man
comes here and admits that he is engaged in
the liquor traffic, and who admits that he has
paid this marshal three brides, extending over
a period of year-one last June, one last
January and one within two weeks. He comes
here and admits it he says he issengaged in
the liquor traffic. This traffic is sufficiently
profitable to enable him to pay out this money
to buy the City Marshal. Now, what is the
legitimate and inevitable conclusion ? Did
you ever know, Mr.. President, and gentlemen,
of a man that Is engaged in the liquor traffic
did you ever hear Of a man who is engaged
continuously In the violation of the law who
had a corrupt official in office whom he
office the very man he would want IN office,
man whom he owned, man whom he knew
was corrupt; did you ever know or hear Of a
man under those circumstances voting to get
out OF office that corrupt City Marshal whom
he could buysand put in an honest one whom
he coald not buy? Now, that is Just the posi-
ton of things, and I say if can show upon
cross-examination, that he at the polls, or any
one else, was taking that course, voting to put
out OF office man whom he owns, and whom
In trNrnxr to hr 1r.% Enx.l ~,
whom, in his BUSINESS, he would want in
office, and put in an honest man whom he did
not own and control, l say Mr.. Chairman.
when / have proven that, have proven fact
which almost convicts him, without ANYTHING
else, of not telling the truth here upon the
stand, and my point is good one, and an
honest one.
Upon motion the ayes and nays were taken.
and the question excluded upon the following
vote: Hallett, yes; Gallagher, no; Kelsey,
yes; Russell, no; Hawkes., yes Denison, We s;
Noyes, yes.
The characterization was continued. the
witness stating that he could not recollect
how many complaints or proceedings had been
entered against aim for violation of the liquor
law since Mr.. Andrews had been City Mar
shall, but that he (the Marshal had been to his
place probably fifty times to make seizures, and
that he commenced to visit him more frequent
ly about three weeks ago; that after he paid
him the fifty dollars he did not come from the
next Tuesday morning until Saturday night
That he could not tell how much he had paid
In fines since Mr.. Andrews had been City
Marshal.
The witness was Intercepted at length, with
reference to a large number of complaints
against him, and admitted that he was in jail
three times for violation of the liquor law
When asked his motive for complaining of
Andrews, witness tsaid that he thought it
was strange that he should take $3.50 of him
and then go back on him. On redirect exam
/. nation witness said that nobody except CITY
Z Marshal Andrews had shut his shop up within
the last year-that Andrews closed it once last
fall and once this spring.
Horace S. Pride testified. He was MEM
Der of the police force. Last June he seized
barrel of beer which j. W. Sullivan was roll
ing into house on the corner of Spring and
Centre streets. 1t was brought to the station
Nothing was done about the case for four DAYS.
when he told the Marshal of it, and he told
him to hold Sullivan and order him TO court
in the morning. He did SO, and Sullivan said
he couldn't hold him, as he had won case in
that way once before. Sullivan asked il he
was going to press it, and he said he didn't
know. The next day he informed the Marshal
of this, and the Marshal said he had better
gave up the case as they might not succeed.
On cross-examinatiOn witness said he had
! been on the Centre street beat for the past
year; had never received orders to let up on
Sullivan or Cady. He had been told by both
these men that he was too oficious in his
work. He had never reported any cases
against Sullivan (which were not prosecuted
except this one. Sullivan had the barrel when
he seized it Nothing was said about the time
when the barrel was seized at the time he in
formed the Marshal of his seizure. The Mar
shall on this day was not in possession of all
the facts, and on learning them afterward
changed his mind.
Officer Frank confirmed the testimony of
Officer Pride in reference to the seizing of the
barrel.
Mr.. James Wallace next testified. He hauled
the barrel which was seized by Officers Frank
and Pride.
James E. Cady here testified. On October
10th he was found guilty on a complaint
of search and seizure, entered an appeal and
gave bonds. October 10Th he gave Andrews
$50 on condition that he would discontinue as
to him and hold the other man. This was in
the Marshals office, and he was promised that
the case should be thrown out before it went
up stairs. About 3 O'Clock p. m. this trans
pred. The next day he went into court,
waived examination and entered an appeal
The case was discontinued.
On cross-examination the witness said that
Marshal Andrews, Officers Skillings and P ride
made the seizure in this case. He was in the
gateway in his shirt sleeves ready to go to
work, standing half way behind the bar. He
thought the Marshal discontinued the case, as
he had great deal to do with the Municipal
Court. Thomas Hart, James A. Wallace and
Thomas j. Morgan had been in his employ.
He could not remember the number of COM
plants which had been made against himself
and his men, but they had been pretty numer-
GUS. The Marshal did not keep up the Selling
all the time. He began the middle of Sep
TENDER last and generally made the seizure
himself. The first time quite quantity of
liquors were seized and at the same time
complaint was made under the nuisance act
Ills case never went through. Dates of
numerous complaints against the witness and
his men we've called up.
Some discussion arose between the chair and
Mr.. Putnam on the method of cross-examin-
alton, and it was then continued.
He told Charles McCarty, j. W. Sullivan,
his father and many others that he had bribed
the Marshal, but took no step to have him
punished-with the exception of consulting
couRsel-until some time last winter.
At this point Mr.. Putnam said he desired to
do nothing which the board considered i'm
proper but he desired to put in evidence what
these men had done at the polls, and in every
way to annoy the Marsbll.
Mr. Looney objected and Mr.. Putnam de-
clined to press the point.
The witness continued; He had said moth
ing concerning the alleged bribery about town
save in a general way. He had offered to bet
at some time previous that Marshal Andrews
would be removed. He had made no threats
apout the removal of the Marshal but had
said he would like to see him removed.
Mr.. Looney said he was reminded by Judge
Goddard that it was of vital interAst IN hia