Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1890-08-14
THE GUY TRIAL GOES on.
The District Commissioners Disagree az
to the Conduct Of the Case.

=
to the Conduct Of the Case.
DOUGLASS AND ROBERT VERSUS HISE-MR HAzrr-
TON BEGINS HIS ARGUMENT, CLAIMING THAT
THE CHARGES AGAINST our HAVE BEkS sUs-
TAINEp-nR. cIAuGHToS REPLIES.
The evidence in the Guy trial was all finished
at the morning session Tuesday and when the
adjournment was taken that day il was until
O'Clock this afternoon, With the understanding
that the lawyers should then proceed with
their pleading. There was not large audience
present this afternoon compared with the
attendance on days when interesting and sem
sntional testimony was expected There were
several prominent lawyers present, however, to
listen to the efforts OF their legal brethren.
The testimony in this case is very voluminous
and the record covers 500 typewriter pages.
When Mr.. Hazelton began his argument he
said he had tried to present succlnctly rs
possible the charges and testimony that he
thought would sustain them.
COMMISSIONER HINES POSITION.
The three Commissioners sat in their usual
chairs behind the long table in the board room
and listened to the arguments of the lawyers;
that is to say, two of them did. Mr.. Hine, who
has taken a stand on the matter of how
this trial should be conducted entirely OPP
posite to that of his colleagues. sat back
in his big arm chair smoking a cigar and care
fully reading over one of the records OF the
trial Afterward he laid the record down and
Mr.. Hine on Tuesday read his
opinion on what he thought should be done
with the testimony that Col Robert received
in his private Investigation of the police force,
as was told in The STAR that even
are not properly the keepers Of 's.ate
secrets" and that what one OF the Commits
sioners might know would have any bearing on
the trial OF a man situated as Guy is should be
made public at the request of the attorney for
the defendant
Mr.. Douglass and Col. Robert took the oppo-
site ground in the matter.
Mn. HAzELToN READ HIS ARGUMENT,
which made quite volume OF type written mat
ter. He began by announcing what violations
of good order and discipline were comprised in
the charges against Lieut.. Guy, and then made
IN exhaustive review of all the testimony that
went to sustain these charges. He read the
names OF the various witnesses for the prosecu-
ton and gave a brief summary Of the testi-
mony that each one gave. Especial attention
was given to the testimony of Sergeant
Burgess and Shurlsnd and the episode
of the attempt made by Shurland and MADDOX
to make case against Mrs. Boyd, who, il was
understood, was keeping an improper house.
Mr.. Hazelton said that while Maddox in this
case has given testimony directly opposite to
that he gave in the Shurland trial several wears
ago, if either testimony was worthy of credence
1t was the testimony that he gave in the
first case, for at that time the circum-
stances were fresher in his mind. Now,
Mr.. Hazelton said several years had elapsed.
and moreover he insisted that the Commission
ers should take into account the fact that Mad
dox had great interest in Guys acquittal lie
also referred to the testimony that Guy had
gwen himself with reference to the matter
of the Masonic symbols and claimed
that the testimony he had given on different
occasions did not agree by any means. Mr.
Hazel.on said that If Guy had given the order
to Shurland and Maddox about making a case
against Mrs. Boyd, as the testimony has gone to
show, thens
GUY WAS GUILTY OF OUTRAGEOUS CONDUCT
in bringing charges against Shurisnd and
having him removed from the force for obey
ing the very orders which he himself had
given. He also held that Guy had shown him.
self an incapable and inefficient officer in that
he did not break up the policy shops of Riley
and others in the third precinct.
Mr.. Hazelton said that there could be rea-
sonabe doubt that Guy did give the order 10
Shurland and Maddox, and that he congratu-
lated himself on the success OF his undertaking
until public feeling was aroused to such an
extent over the disgraceful methods used that
ordinate in order to save himself
The testimony of ex-Lieut. Arnold and others
was also discussed by counsel.
Mr.. CLAuGHToN FOR TIE ACCUSED.
| In rising to begin his reply Mr.. Claughton
said that he wished to make few remarks with
reference to the statement that has been made
a number Of times in the course Of
this trial. that the Commissioners had
the right to discharge Guy without
the formality Of trial ami that the trial
| kindness conferred. in return for which Guy
should be correspondingly grateful. He
said that while he did not deny that
| the Commissioners had the power to
remove any officer arbitrarily the question OF
! right was an altogether different matter. He
held that the power to discharge rested upon
| the very grant of the power itself which grant
| reads that dismssals might be made when the
| public interests so demand. Whether the pub
| lie interests demanded the removal of Lieut.
| Guy or not was the very thing trial was nee
essary to decide. If the Commissioners had
/ felt sure all along that the interests of the pub
lie demanded his removal then it was theiI
| duty to remove him without the mere Formally
| of trial.
Mr. Claughton did not read his argument
! nor did he use notes. He began by saying
| that charges OF most serious character had
been brought against a man who had
always discharged his duties a.
| an officer most faithfully, or
| SO at least many of the best citizens of Wash.
| ington had come before the board of their OWL
accord to testify. In referring to the shame and
| obloquy that would attach to an innocent man
| were he convicted of such offenses
| as Guy is charged with, Mr.. Claughton drew
a pathetic picture OF the condition Of
| Guys young wife and child were he convicted,
though an efficient and innocent officer. Dur.
| ing this part of the speech Lieut.. Guy was WIS.,
IDLY affected and his eyes filled up with tears.
| scoprNa TIE
Mr.. Claughton continued and gave the fou,
witnesses-Block, Burgess, Arnold and At
chison-a most thorough raking over
and said that their testimony was based
on malice and personal aggrandize
ment He said that charges had beer
/ brought against Guy. Gessford and Boteel
| and that it was clear to anyone the reasons fol
| this. Arnold would fill one of these vacancies
| Burgess, tho senior sergeant. would legally sue
| coed to another. Block could not be tn,
| third lieutenant, for he wa!
out OF the regular line Of promotion.
| However, he went on to explain at some
| length the motives that Block may have had
| in prosecuting the case. He could not account
| for Atchison's reasons, however, though he
/ thought if he had been allowed TO continue
| the examination of Riley, the policy man, he
| might have shown wherein lay Arnold's power
| over Atchenson, and theireasons for Atchison
removal from the position Of watchmsn at the
White House.
| He then went on to criticise the rest Of the
| witnesses, to show the motive for their testi-
| mony, and its fallacies and Inconsistencies.
WANTED TO TESTIFY FoR GUY.
Mr.. W. H. Smith, formerly police commits