The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1884-05-03
THE ANDREWS CASE.
A Condensed Report of tse Arguments of
the City solicitor, William n. LOOney,
Esq, ON Thursday Eevning Last mt the
Hearing iG the Matter of the Removal
of City Marshal Andrews.

Esq, ON Anufsday Eevning Last mt the
Hearing la the Matter of the Removal
of City Marshal Andrews.
Mr.. Mayor and Gentlemen Of the Board of alder
men:
enter upon the discussion of this case with con.
| siderable reluctance My personal relations with
Marshal Andrews have always been of the most
pleasant character and marked with the kindliest
feelings. But, like you, gentlemen, 1 have a duty
| 20 perform. act for others not myself, and /
| should be unworthy of the confidence which has
| been placed in me, were L to allow personal con-
/ sideratons to influence my action or bias my judy
ment. Socially Mr.. Andrews is considered good
| fellow He has many warm friends in both parties
and upon his side is enlisted the tura prejudice
| which all mankind feels in favor of the person in
| possession. My oppoHents-two of the ablest and
| most eminent lawyers of the State-have the wind
"full in the sail while must row against an ad-
| verse current.
But the very fact thai 80 young and inexperienced
person as myself is opposed by such intel lectual
Goliaths as Judge Goddard and Mr.. Putnam is suf-
fcent evidence of the true character of these pro-
| ceedings. This is not prosecution nor am I a
prosecuting officer. You, gentlemen, are here
simply and solely for the purpose of ascertaining
the truth relative TO the charges which have been
pIoI0iIcu <AuuI0WS, anu mere
| to assist you in the performance of that duty.
The Mayor is the executive of the city. In the
words of Section of the city charter:
SIT shall be his duty to be vigilant and active in
causing the laws of the State and ordinances and
regulations of the city, to be executed and en-
1 forced, to exercise general supervision the
conduct of all subordinate officers, and to cause
violations or neglect of duty on their part to be
punished"
Marshal Andrews is subordinate officer Certain
1
| and Cady-have preferred charges, and submitted
evidence in relation to them, to the Mayor concern
| ing the official conduct of Marshal Andrews It
was clearly the duty of Mayor King to call your
attention to these charges. If he did not he would
violate his official oath, and be recreant to the
trust imposed upon him by our citizens. And yet
because he has thus acted he has been subjected
the abuse and annimadversion of venomous and
narrow partlsans am conndent snat every honor
in accordance with his oath of Office and his
scientious convictions of duty.
The charges having been preferred, and the
evidence having been submitted, pro and con, it
your duty to carefully consider the upon the
evidence submitted, and then to take such action
under the provision of law which governs this hear
ing Is warranted by the evidence. This case has
excited more or less comment. A tempest of angry
criticism mas sagsd ABOUT t5 yog portion Of the
Ever since the investigation commenced the ques-
| ton has been decided outside with an air of
here. Organs have spoken before all the evidence
had been submitted, and with ignorance of law
only equalled by their perversion of facts.
have alluded to this matter merely to deprecate
such unfair interference and to express the hope
that the partisan sword of Brennus may not be
cast into the scale compelling by its massive weight
both law and evidence to kick the beam. feel
confident gentlemen, that uncharitable preju dg
ment has forstaled your action in this case, that
you have Invested yourselves of all party feelings
and that you have entered into the consideration Of
this case with minds unbiased and unprejudiced.
Every possible privilege has been accorded
Marshal Andrews Charges have been furnished,
and over week given him for the preparation of
his defense. This is in marked contrast to the
just and infamous manner in which Deputy Marshal
Crowell was treated by Mayor Deering last year.
Then you well know, in secret conclave, effort
was made to strangle Mr.. Crowen without even
two days notice, and without preferring any
of condemnation upon any attempt 60 revive the
infamy and terrors of the inquisition. In
cordance with the dictates of justice and the spirit
of our institutions you have left nothing undone to
give Mr.. Andrews fair and impartial hearing, and
The hearing has been open that the broad light of
public opinion and public criticism could shine up
on it.
Previous to 1877, when the law under which
these proceedings are held was passed, the City
Marshal was annually appointed by the Mayor. In
my Judgment the theory of the law before it was
altered is the more correct The Mayor is the
executive, and he must enforce the laws. For the
proper enforcement of the laws he is responsible to
the people, and upon the effective execution of the
laws the success of his administration depends
The police force, of which the City Marshal is the
chief is the instrument by which the Mayor exc
cutes and enforces the law. The Mayor is bound to
see that the laws are faithfully executed, and he
is generally charged with the powers and RESPONSE
bilities of the executive department.
1t is absolutely essential to the successful per-
Torrance of his duties that the Mayor should have
as City Marshal one in whom he has the utmost
confidence, in whose ability, integrity and discre
ton he can implicitly trust. If the relations be-
tween the Mayor and City Marshal are strained
division, indecison and delay in the execution and
enforcement OF the laws must inevitably follow, a
condition of things exceedingly unfavorable to that
steady and vigorous administration of the law
which is absolutely essential for the welfare of the
city.
But the present law must be observed, and Mar
shall Andrews is entitled to the benefit of its pro-
visions. Under the present law he holds his Office
during good behavior, subject however, after a
hearing, to removal at any time by the Mayor, by
and with the advice and consent of the aldermen
for ineficiency or other cause" Now certain
charges have been preferred against Mr.. Andrews,
and the evidence has been submitted to you both
for the prosecution and for the defence. 1t is not
essential for you to be satisfied of the truth of each
and every, charge, In order to remove Marshal
Andrews. If you are convinced from the evidence
submitted that Marshal Andrews is inefficient you
have right to remove him. 1t is not necessary
that you should be convinced that he has been
guilty of bribery. If upon q just and impartial
Consideration of the evidence submitted under
these charges you believe that he is inefficient and
duty to remove him.
If the evidence adduced does not prove that Mar
shall Andrews is inefficient unfit for his position,
he ought not to be removed. If the evidence shows
that he is inefficient, that he has prostituted his
position at the feet of criminals that he has sacri
feed the city escutcheon to his own love of lucre
that he has been impelled by low-bred degraded
instinct instead OF pure upright love of duty and
that he has so debased and degraded the police de-
partment that it steams and rots with corruption
then it is your duty to remove him. and all honor.
able men tb will a;Rproye your action Now let us
ascertain whether you are justified in removing
Marshal Andrews l shall confine my remarks to
fourth, fifth and sixth charges.
The first charge is:
SD That in April 1888, he issued orders to mem
bers of the police department to notify those per-
sons engaged in the illegal sale of Intoxicating
liquors that unless their places of business were
closed at 10 o'clock each evening the law weuld be
enforced against them. there by giving them assur-
ance that If they did so close, they would not be
prosecuted"
If Marshal Andrews gave an order to the police
force of the tenor of this charge he certainly is unfit
for the position which he holds. Such an order
would be practically saying to those violating the
until 10 o'clock at night, but then they must cease
violating it.. Marshal Andrews denies that he used
the words contained in the charge, or words of
similar meaning. The direct evidence upon this
point is contained in the testimony of L. Clifford
Wade and Deputy Marshal Crowell. Mr.. Wade
wanted the police to see that the shops where
liquors were supposed to be sold were closed every
night by 10 o'clock. n That every policeman
must be responsible for his beat and must notify the
shops his beat that they must close at 10 O'clock
nightly and not open on Sunday" Deputy Mar
shall Crowel testified chat "his recollection of the
order was that they should go to those places at
10 O'Clock to see that they were all closed up and
if not closed they should make seizure.''
Now submit that the only possible construction
of this order was that the police were to allow the
criminals their respective beats engaged in the
illegal sale of intoxicating liquors to violate the
law, provided they ceased violating it at 10
o'clock each night and did not violate it on Sun
day. Imagine similar instructions given to gam
blers, keepers of houses of prostitution, thieves
and other criminals, and yet the principle is the
same. The iprohibitory law is upon our statute
book. 1t is the duty of the Marshal to prosecute
all offenders against the laws of the State. (R o.
p. 347, sec. 81
The law against the illegal sale of intoxicating
liquors is of the laws of the State and it is his
sworn duty to prosecute the offenders against the
laws of the State. If an unjust discrimination is
thus made in favor of any crime, all laws are
brought into contempt, and the administration of
Justice degenerates into farce. When laws are
made and promulgated they must be executed
Justly and impartiay. The Marshal is an executive
officer. No discretion is submitted to him. 1t is
not for him to deliberate and decide upon the wis
IL adj Nfn AF ftan