The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1889-07-25
THE PORTER DOW CASE.
Arguments Made by Both sides yes
terday.
The Committee on Fire Department
Report to the City Council
Recommending That No Further ac-
ton be Taken In the Matter.

Yesterday afternoon, the hearing In the
Porter-Dow case was continued before the
committee on fire department in the alder
mems room. Alderman Shaw presided. DO
siah 81. Drummond, Jr., all the testimony on
both sides being in, argued the case for Mr..
Porter. MI. Drummond argued to prove
that Capt Dow was not on the fire engine
when it was claimed Mr.. Porter pushed him
off, and that the most Capt. Dow did was to
reach out aud grasp rod, or post, on the en-
CINE. Mr.. Drummond claimed that under
the rules and regulations and ordinances of
the city the engine man is a superior officer
to the driver of the engine, and that the en-
CINE man not only has a right, but it is his
duty to prevent any stranger from getting on
an engine when it is Oh the way to fire.
Mr.. Porter did not know Mr.. Dow was fire.
man, and he did just what he had a right to
do and just what it was his duty to do, when
he pushed Mr.. Dow off the engine. Mr..
Drummond also held that even fireman has
no right to get on an engine when it is going
to a fire, unless he has the consent of the en-
CINE man to do so. If Mr.. Dow has sus-
tanned injuries they are the result of his own
carelessness
Seth l.. Larrabee, Esq, stated in Capt.
Dow's behalf that eight witnesses had been
examined who testified positively that Capt.
Dow had secured firm hold upon the en-
CINE, and that engineman Porter pushed him
off, causing him to fall and sustain injuries.
Mr.. Larrabee claimed that Mr.. Porter had
no right to throw even stranger off the en-
CINE when it was going to fire. Mr.. Por-
ter's act was either Intentional or uninten-
tional. 1t was cruel act to throw, or to
push, or to diSlodge the hold Of any man up
on the engine. If the act was Intentional, it
was brutal act. do not think, said Mr..
Larrabee, that the act was intentional. If
the act was Intentional, it was cruel one.
| Capt. Dow, argued Mr.. Larrabee, had per-
| feet right upon the engine. 1t is customary
| for firemen to ride on engines, and custom is
law. l do not propose to suggest what shall
be the action of the committee in this mat
| ter. With you is left by Capt. Dow this
| question. Not only Mr.. Dow, but the fire
| department of Portland is interested in this
| matter
| The hearing here closed. The committee
| on fire department went into executive ses-
sion, and prepared their report. The report
/
| Council last night by Alderman Shaw, and
| accepted by that body:
| The committee on Fire Department having been
instructed to investigate The circumstances at
Dow, foreman Of engine company No. p on the
occasion OF the fire Saturday, March 23d, 1899,
Council, have attended to their duty, and report
that they have heard the evidence offered by re-
| spondents and arguments Of counse and CLEAN
| the following facts: That atsabout CLOCK on
the morning Of March 20, 1853, an alarm of fire
| was rung from Box Al, at which engine No. 1, OF
hc wSoss porr is eMgpeer and engine No
| well as their companies were required under the
rules of the Board of Engineers to respond.
| rate Of speed down Middle street, and near Mar
ket square, Mr.. Dow ran into the street and fol-
lowed after the engine, with the intention Of
standing, as is the custom for the members of the
| department, so long as the engine is not over
| loaded. In
That as Mr.. Dow was approaching the engine
| the engineer waved his hand, warning him, the
person approaching, not to attempt to get on, he
| not then recognizing Mr.. Dow as connected with
the department, but as Mr.. Dow did not notice
| the warnings he continued to approach the en-
| when Mr.. Porter struck Dow's hand or arm in
such way as to cause him to loose his hold and
iall Win great force upon the pavement, thereby
| Rule V Of the government of the fire department
| requires each member of the companies assigned
the committee agree that Mr. Dow at this s. time
| was in the proper discharge of his duty and
| should be commended for the importance which
he places upon strict compliance of the rules
| and his Willingness to assume risks in order to
| render his company more efficient service, but al
| the time of the accident Mr.. Dow was without the
/ equipment required by rule II, which would have
| given the engineer knowledge of the position
| occupied by Mr. Dow. f.
The committee regard the act of EngineerPortsr
as improper and dangerous, but as this was done al
| a time OF excitement, and without any intention
| of injdriDg Mr. Dow, or keeping any member Of
| the department from his engine, the committee
are of the opinion that no further action is re-
qured on the part of the City Council.
ar THOS. SHAW,
~ BENZ. THOMPSON,
i EDw. T. TowNSHEND,
| 7. o. CoNANT,
7. E. CoYNE.
Thus the Porter-Dow case that has so long
| hpen nendinp is finally settlad