Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1891-06-13
His Intimations of the Power Swayed by
c. L. Magee in the Conduct of
Municipal Matters.
DISLIKE OF OFFICIAL FIGUREHEADS,
Such as he Terms Superintendents Evans and Weir
and Assistant 0Mara.


ceived from Mr.. Magee. When 1 found he
was disinclined to do that Il thought perhaps
he was holding it back and would. present
it at a special meeting of Councils that 1
understood was to be held next Monday.
But l learn now that there is to be no
special meeting, and as the newspapers
have been talking about it so much and
criticising the secrecy in which it has been
held, have decided to give it to the news
papers for fear~Mr. Brown does not. :"
In his letter he give his answer to G. L.
Magee, whose statement was read in Coun-
ellis several weeks ago. He refers to Mr..
Magee as only one of go, 900 citizens, but an
influential power in municipal affairs. Init
nation is strongly made that Chief Brown
should have sent an explanation of his own
to Councils in connection with the Magee
letter.
Criticism of the Wrong Person.
The Mayor says the latter attacked him
not on statements made from his own OBJ
servation, but on facts CLEANED from Chief
Brown himself, and that the criticisms were
directed at the wrong person.
The major portion of the letter is taken
up with comments on the Superintendents,
Evans and Weir, of the Fire and Police
Bureaus, the writer insisting that the
former is incompetent and the latter en-
powered with little more than the duties of
a clerk Assistant Superintendent of Police
Roger O'Mara also comes in for a few
strokes of the executive pen, the Mayor
stating that whatever efficiency characterizes
the police force cannot be attributed to him
For some of the police officials he has only
the highest praise.
The following is the letter in full:
Mayor Gourley to Chief Brown.
MAYORS OFFIoE,l
PITrsBURG, June TO- 1891
Mr.. J. o. Brown. Chief Department Public Safety:
DEAR SIR: On the 25th of May you pre-
sented to ScSect Council letter addressed
to you by your bondsman, Mr.. Magee, which
was apparently intended as a reply to a
letter of a previous date written by myself
to YOU regarding your fire department.
MI. Magee's communication was devoted
principally to an elaborate encomium on the
present Superintendent of your Fire Bureau.
1t must, therefore, be accepted as an en-
phatic denial of the charges of incompetency
made by you as Chief of the Department of
Public Safety against that official.
From your own oft-repeated statements,
and the letter to which refer, it becomes
evident that you and your bondsman are
not in unison regarding the officer who is
the recognized head of the Fire Department
of our city. .
While 1 will not permit myself to be
drawn into personal controversy with Mr..
Magee, touching his testimonial to the eff
cheney of Mr.. Evans, beg leave to enter an
emphatic protest against what must appear
to you and himself an unjustifiable attempt
to thrust upon me the authorship of charges
made by you.
Nv c6n6munioo tion IN Won raoa rdino tho
Chief of your Fire Department was based
upon information received, and that infor-
nation, as is well known to you and Mr..
Magee was supplied by you.
You-the Chief of the Department of Pub
lie cSafety-possessing every opportunity to
enable you to form just estimate OF hisca-
pacity, openly and unreservedly declared
the weakness and inefficiency of the highest
officer in your fire department
Charges of Shifted Responsibility.
Notwithstanding this fact, you transmitted
to Councils, without protest, a letter from
your bondsman tcstifying to the eminent fit
ness of the officer whom you mad pronounced
wholly incapable of performing the duties
intrusted to his keeping. You, moreover
remained entirely silent, and without one
word of dissent, permitted the author of
that letter to impute to another the respon-
sibility of charges which emanated from
you.
Against you the thunder OF your bonds
man should have been directed; upon YOU
he should have exhausted the vials of his
righteous Indignation: upon your head he
should have placed his Christening hand ex-
claiming, "Ecce homo" with all the bitter
ness of offended power.
What splendid opportunity was pre-
sented by your bondsman for you to submit
to Councils a statement presenting your own
honest estimate of the fitness and qualific,r-
tions of the Superintendent who had been
under your direct charge for q period of
q nnrltr OF
would have been exhibited by these docu-
men Is. Such a public declaration might
have involved you in q controversy
with Mr.. Magee and necessitated an
explanation on your part of the considera-
tions that governed your action in retaining
your Superintendent in position of serious
responsibility; but it would not only have
been frank and ingenious to Councils, but
it would have reflected credit upon you as
public official
For reasons best known to yourself, you
deemed II inexpedient to pursue this course,
and for the present leave the subject with
you.
The closing paragraph Of your bondsman's
letter contained an accusation which was
intended to reflect on my integrity as pub
lie official. This was poisoned shaft; but,
like the boomerang of the Australian native,
it circled backward and fell at the feet of the
accuser.
The Mayor Inclined to Charity.
Uncharitable persons might claim that
this paragraph embodied the substance of
what you wanted to bring to the notice of
Councils and the public, but am rather in
clined to the opinion that you simply desired
to place on record the statement of your
bondsman certifying to the efficiency of your
Superintendent.
Mr.. Magee is only one man of the a5O,OOO
people in. this city, but then he is an infiu-
ential factor in the municipal government.
But what of your police bureau? You
have gentleman at the head of this bureau
who is nominally superintendent, but who
in reality has no more to do with the control
the humblest patrolnan who nightly ira
verses his lonely beat. He regularly draws
the salary of Superintendent, but
he performs few, if any, of
the appropriate and legitimate duties
contemplated by the ordinance establishing
ant position held by him. You never con-
ferred upon him the power and authority of
Superintendent, or permitted him to assume
the duties that belonged to his Office.
The highest Office in the police department
of great city is practically an empty void,
and the gentleman who occupies it is, to all
mtents and purposes, an official nonentity.
have no complaint to make against your
so-called Superintendent. He may be well
equipped for the Office he holds, but you
have never given him an opportunity to dis
play his ability or leave the impress of his
individuality or skill upon the force of
which he is the supposed chief.
Whatever efficiency characteriZes your po-
lice force cannot be attributed to the efforts
OF its Superintendent or his assistants; the
duties of the latter have never been defined.
Doesn't Wish to Be Misunderstood.
Do not misunderstood me- l would not