Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1890-08-19
COLONEL ROBBERY.

settled the matter and suppose that my at
tention would never have been drawn to the
question OF licenses or to the police department
But these dsagreemeuts placed me in such a
position that my action on these licenses was
going to settle the question in a large
number of cases. Had chosen to stand with
Mr. Douglass there would have been granted
about 40 less of retail Licenses than have actu-
ally been granted. 1t did not seem best to me
to close such II large number of saloons without
any warning to the proprietors, who, as their
business was legal, had reason to expect that
they could continue in it. 1t seemed to me
BETTER TO CLOSE THE WORST SALOONS,
those who had violated the laws, who sold to
minors and who kept houses that we're disor-
derby, and TO grant licenses to those who had
shown disposition to obey the laws and keep
orderly saloons. In order to ascertain the
character of these saloons it <was necessary to
consult the lieutenants Of police, who we're
required to make reports upon every
one OF the applications and answer
some fourteen questions with respect to each
applicant The answers to the question, whic',
were made on printed form, were handed in
last November. As did not arrive here until
the middle of February, it was important, as
the answers in many cases were very brief, that
should talkwith the police officers and sometimes
visit the saloon itself, in order to form my
Judgment as to whether the license should be
granted or not. 1t seems to me that that was
much better plan than simply to take the
formal papers in each case and the attorney of
the applicant the only sources Of informa-
ton. These Investigations soon showed that
while in many cases the police department was
very efficient and the lieutenants' reports per-
fectly reliable. yet they showed also that there
were some cases where these reports were of
little or no value, as in
THE NOTORIOUS CASE OF GRIFFIN REED,
which resulted in the dismissal Of two SER
geants and one private from the police force
The fact is that persons differ as to the respon-
sibility connected with the signing OF papers
II am satisfied that responsible party has
examined into the subject. then l can
sign the paper simply upon such exami-
ner's statement that it is correct But
when / am called upon to sign papers upon
which there il some doubt as to their correct
ness, / cannot sign them without myself exam
lining into the subject 1t seems to me very
untenable position that an officer can be as
signed to duty where he is to sign papers
blindy, simply because somo person had
signed them before, when he knows that
he would not sign them for the same
reasons that the other party 30 signed them.
In the question OF the liquor license matter the
key to the situation is the police force No
Con mssioner should be required to act on ap-
plications fo- liquor licenses on the certificates
OF the police officers unless he has the power
to investigate the character of the police Off
GERS sufficiently to ascertain whether he is will
ing to accept their reports on such cases.
THE CIVIL COMMISSIONERS BILL CRITICISED.
I'm reference to the bill sent TO Congress by
a majority of the Commissioners providing
for placing the two captains of engineers under
the Commissioners as board instead OF under
the Engineer Commissioner, would say that
the reasons given by the ma ority of the Com
missioners for the passage of this bill
4 20 90 L.;
the law. The first reason given is that
most OF the disbursements to which there
would be questions raised to their validity
come under these two officers Well, the pas
sage Of this bill would not alter this state of
affairs at all, provided these officers were left
as at present, on engineer duty. Those officers
are IN immediate charge of all engineer
ing work controlled by the Commits
sioners, the surface work, such as county
roads, pavements, &C., being under the charge
of Capt Rossell, and the work below the
surface being such as sewers, water, &C.. nndcr
the charge OF Capt Lusk. The details of the
disbursements in any case, whether they report
to the Commissioners as board or to the
Engineer Commissioner. must be managed by
these two officers, if they are in charge Of
those works. In regard to similar items Of ex-
penditure they are controlled by the orders Of
the Commissioners. They are free to adopt
any method they see fit in conformity with
existing laws.
ANOTHER OBJECTION RAISED
is that q majority of the Commissioners
cannot call for information from the engineer
officers who are assistants to the Engineer
Commissioner. This information is not held
by the Engineer Commissioner, but by his as
sistants. and these officers have been in
fact ordered by the Commissioners upon
duties relating to matters outside Of
the control Of the Engineer
Commissioner, by the Commissioners a. .
board, when they think it for the best interests
OF the District. In one case Capt Rosseu was
ordered to Boston, Newton, Providence and
Newark, NJ, to investigate the various patrol
systems, and his report was adopted by the
Commissioners, and the work was then carried
out under the direction OF the Commissioner
in charge of the police department.. The same
officer was also ordered. in connection with
the chief of police, to inspect in regard to GER
tain matters under the supervision OF the po-
lice. II seems to me that any one would
recognize the propriety Of such orders.
In fact the majority of the Commission
ers represent the entire board, and
it seems to me are free to control
the work Of the District governAent The fact
that these engineer officers are assistants to the
Engineer Commissioner does not empower them
to do anything that they could not do II they were
under the Commissioners as board. Ofcourse,
| il these officers simply reported to the com-
missioners for duty they could be assigned
! to police duty or at the Washington Asylum OF