Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1889-09-28
THE BLOCK CASE DIsMISsED.
Commissioners Stone Does Not Think
the Detective Was to Blame.

Commissioner Stone Does Not Think
the Detective Was to Blame.
He SAYS TzxRs WAS uxDJ, HASTE USED IN
GETTING MuNRoE OUT Or THE COUNTRY
But He THINKS BLOCK PxRSoRnkD Hw WHOLE
DUTY IN TIE NATTER.
In the Criminal Court room this morning
Warren @. Stone, United Stares commissioner,
who had been engaged in hearing the charge
against Detective 8. J. Block Of compromising
felony in allowing Frank Munroe, alias Brain
ard, to escape prosecution, rendered his de-
cision, dismissing the case and discharging the
defendant
The commissioners decision was as follows:
''The warrant in this case was issued August
"a, 1889, upon the sworn complaint of Ferdi-
nand Lowenstein, who specifically and in detail
charged the defendant with having violated as
q member OF the metropolitan police force tn 9
provlsions OF section 43l Of the RS, U.S., re-
lating to the District OF Columbia in this that
the defendant, Sigmond J. Block, did. on the
18th day OF June. 1859, and between said date
and the Esd of July. 1882 compromise felony
ties his (B'O just grounds of sus-
picion against one Frank Munroe alias
bralnard az the perpetrator of the
crime OF grand larceny in feloniously taking
SSl vail gtwoiIy, the properly Oh one
Alice Parker; that the said Block participated
assented to and assisted the said Munroe to es-
cape u full judicial examination Of his said
crimes; also by receiving a money compensa-
ton from Malcolm Seaton for and on account
OF said Munroe while the latter was subject to
arrest Tor said crime, and in permitting said
Munroe to go at large while so subject to ar
rest without due effort, or any effort to secure
before any court or officers having cognizance
OF said crime an investigation thereof.
"All Of the matters and things charged in this
complaint are in violation OF the statute re-
Ierred TO- 1t II my province here to inquire,
| fairly and impartially, whether there are prob
able grounds indicating violation of this stat
ute by the defendant. II there are such
grounds 1t is my duty to hold him for the action
OF the grand jury-if not to discharge him from
the burden OF this complaint
THE TESTIMONY
'The greatest latitude" said the com.
missioner, has been given both sides
in this examination that there might be
no charge of unfairness, and many witnesses
examined. 1t Is in proof that Frank Munroe,
alias Brainard, by his own confession to Block
was guilty OF the larceny from Mrs. Parker
charged In the complaint This is undisputed-
1t Is kewise shown that Munroe had been guilty
or other larcenies, was under arrest
and confined in the District Jail awaiting
hearing therefor. That no attempt had az any
rant or hold him for the Parker robbery, al
though full knowledge thereof was in the
possession OF the defendant, the higher police
officials and of the district attorney It 10
further In proof that he was used by the prose-
cutlon In the Criminal Court a. the principal
witness against Ferdinand Lowenstein who was
convicted mainly on his testimony of receiving
the silver ware stolen from Seaton. knowing il
TO have been stolen. That thereupon, and
before the jury rendered its verdict. the case
n EyQIn mat ILL
ant district attorney, the prisoner released
from jail and by an arrangement previously
entered into between the relatives and friends
OF Munroe and the chief of police he was
ESCORTED TO NEW YORK
by Private Detective Charles E. Finder and
the defendant, the latter having been fur
nished with SlS5 by Col. Malcolm Seaton with
which to pay the expenses Of the trip and pro-
vide clothing and the necessary articles for
Munroe, and to pay his passage to Grevtown.
Nicaragua. That Block rendered detailed
account TO Col Seaton on his return and
handed him at the same time an unexpended
balance OF 1886. Seaton says he offered and
desired to compensate Block in behalf of the
family for his trouble in a substantial man
ner. II proper SO to do, but that Block declined
any reward whatever. Block testifies to the
same thing. 1t is not contradicted. Block
says he was selected for this mission because
ne had other police business in New York and
Newport, RI No proof to the contrary is
shown, although Block declined to discover the
nature OF this other police business when ques-
toned.
THE DISTRICT ATTORNEYS OFFICE.
''The testimony relied upon BY the defense
mainly is that of Judge Hoge, the United
States district attorney, and his assistant. Mr..
Iles d. Armes who both in the strongest
IDLE terms testified that Block had i'm
rted to them IN their official capacity all the
facts that were ascertained and developed by
him concerning the Parker robbery. That they
ordered cessation of all proceedings against
Munroe aud that no prosecution was to be
had against hlu-hence the nolle pros and the
release from custody. This action is justified
by those officials on the ground that in the
discretion they claim is vested in them as to
prosecutions it was the wiser course in the
interests Of the public to use Munroe
"a witness against Lowensten than to prose-
cute him for the various larcenies he had COM
United. 1t is not for me to criticize their &C.
ton, only 80 far as it may be necessary in de-
termnins the probable guilt of the accused 1t
appears from the testimony of Major Moore.
chief OF police; Inspector Swndells and Officers
Raft and Horne that all the facts in the Parker
larceny case were reported by Block to the
proper officials at headquarters.
NO FACTS WITHHELD.
"No facts have developed at this hearing
showing that this defendant withheld any facts
from those 10 whom he usually reported. in
Guiding officials OF the district attorneys Office
So far as l can see from the mass of evidence
in this case, he could do no more The reports
he made of the Parker larceny were full and
complete He had no other way to reach the
proper Judicial authorities except through the
officers charged with the duty of formally pre-
senting such cases to the court and Jury. The
law does not vest police officer with dscre-
ton as to the final disposition of criminal
case. His duty in the premises is ended when
he fully makes known all the facts or reason
able causes Of suspicion against an alleged
criminal.
NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE WINGS.
ut was not the fault of the defendant that
Munroe, q self-confessed felon. was given wings
with which to leave his country for his coun-
trys good. He was free man after the nolle
pros in the case for which he was held was en-
tered and his release from Jail. No prosecu-
ton was to be undertaken against him by those
charged with that duty. 1t was not violation
OF the provisions of any statute for him
to leave the city and country at that
time. Then how is Block to be
implicated violating the law in becoming
the agent OF the family Of Munroe in going
with him to New York, receiving the money
from Seaton, making the purchases and doing
the other acts which contaminated the bauish
ment OF Munroe. Undue haste appears to have
been made in the whole matter, and it is evil
dent to my mind that Munroe would be in the
country today but for his consciousness that
because of his crimes his personal libert y would
be