New-York tribune., 1893-12-30

ALL COMPLAINTS DISMISSED.
INSPECTOR WILLIAMS AND CAPTAIN
SCHNnTTBERGER NOT INDICTED.
A pREsENTMENT BY THE GRAND JURY GIVING
GOOD ADVICE TO THE POLICE-TRUE
BILLS AGAINST THREE WOMEN

| BILLS AGAINST THREE WOMEN.
The Extraordinary Grand Jury failed to find
| that Police Inspector Williams and Captain
Schmittberger were derelict in their duty and dis
| missed the complaints against both Of them The
| Grand Jury made a statement which gave the
| idea that IL was reluctantly forced to arrive at
this conclusion, for it delivered little lecture to
the Police Department. urging it to cooperate
with DR.. Parkhursts society
What made the action in regard to Captain
Schmittbcrger seem illogical was that indictments
were found against the two women on whose
cases the complaints in relation to the oihcer
| were based Thus the Grand Jury showed It's
| belief in the statements Of Dr. Parkhursts agents
| that the two houses were disorderly ones. The
| captain had failed to close them II was
| thought that the indictment of Inspector WILL
| Jams wa: an inevitable consequence Of those
! against Captain Dcvery but the Grand Jury
took different view This in spite of Judge
Barrett's statement that the responsibility of the
inspector was practically the same as that OF
the captain.
ASKING FOR INSTRUCTIONS.
The first witness examined yesterday was
Superintendent Byrnes. At 1l:2O o'clock the
Grand Jury. with Ds;rict-Attorney Nicol,
walked into the Court of oyer and Terminer'
| Tho Jurors wanted some legal advice from Judge
Barrett and the foreman handed to him slip
| II paper containing three questions The hrst oi
these was when a complaint Is made by clu-
| zens OF the existence OF disor6erly houses ana
that matter is referred to the inspector Of that
district. what duty does the law enjoin and what
| Will amount TO neglect Of duty?
The Judges reply was. THE inspector must
be Jealous. energetic and faithful In endeavoring
| - ascertain the truth of the complaint, and in
.-f,. IN
ycstlgation. the complaint be found TO be true
The same duty dcvoIves upon the inspector as
on the captain The captain Is closer to the
scene but the inspector is only one degree re-
| moved. The latter has substantially the same
| duty captain might he guilty while an IN
| spector was not. The inspector is guilty whether
| he approves Of the source Of the complaint or
not II he did not do all that faithful public
service requires. you should not hesitate not
withstandng his position and record, to uphoid
the prlma facic case against him. II you think
tho circumstances were beyond his control you
should not brand him with an indictment The
law enjolns full vigilance on him 70 90 MS
duty"
DUTY OF THE CAPTAIN.
Tho second question was: When captain is
notified by citizens Of the existence OF as
orderly houses. what duty is enjoined upon him
| in relation thereto?
Judge barrett said that the captains duty
was .he same as that of the inspector. The
| captain was closer TO vice than his superior ana
| IL WAS his duti to enforce the law without sug-
| gcstion from others When his attention was
called to particular violations. his duty to sup
press them was intensified.
The third question was: when evidence Is
received by the Grand Jury Of the neglect Of
public duty and the public officers accused re-
quest to appear should they be allowed to APP
near" The answer given to this was: 1t
is a fair thing to give them such an opportunity
unless the charge is So specific and the evidence
so clear that you can see an explanation would
have no weight in making your vote. II you lind
he did all he could dismiss the bill, but don't
hesitate to indict him II he did not do all "A
public officer should \ wilful neglect of public
duty by a public officer Is "A mlsdemeanor.
pREsENTMENT FOUND.
Tho fury then withdrew. It seemed that Judge
| Rarrett's instructions would certainly lead to
tho Indictment Of the accused officers. Inspector
Williams and Captain Schmittberger were called
as witnesses. and at 1880 o'clock the Grand
Jurv returned 10 court. The foreman handed
in three indictments, a presentnent ana SIX
complaints marked dismissed Four com
plants were directed against the inspector and
charged that he had failed to have four dis
orderly houses I'm Captain Deverys precinct the
| Eleventh closed when his attention had been
| called To them. The charges against the cap
tain were failure to close two dlsorderly
houses in West Fiftythird-st.. when he was
captaln Of the West Forty-seventh-st. precinct.
| He IS now I'm the Tenderloln thc west Ihlr-
| tlc,h-st. precinct
| The presentment was as follows:
Tho Extraordinary Grand Jury Of the Court Of
lf,,.. anil TORI usr
| the Judge and having examined all the witnesses
rritd IN & ~ the conclusion that the evidence is not
| sufficiently clear to warrant indictments AZ the
department the duty that lies upon It TO every
SdIt ,b ,bIs bI obiect in View the ocas Of the de-
| partment cooperate as far as possible with the
'0''''' ''' ~ RICHARD j CROSS Foreman
JAMES $ OAKLEY, Secretary.
Judge Barrett said: Il had intended to dis
charge you to-day. but certain matter came up
this morning which will prevent 1t. | will let
| You go now. but must ask YOU to he here on
January s. when shall be able to say whether
| | can then discharge you or must ask you To-
| take up other matters. The Grand jury tneh
| left the court
Frank Moss counsel for the society, said:
| "It is rumored that the Grand jury would
| have acted on Thursday simply on the strength
| of Wiamss report, had ii not been that some
! Of them thought that the inspector might be so
| bound up with Dcvery that he had no inde
| pendent responsibility i'm that district. In any
case. we can stand failure To indict better
| than any one else who has been concerned in the
| presentation of the cases L. the Grand Jury.
| The facts plain and the law was clear
| and there is no reason why there should have
been any obscurity in presenting II. There were
no difficult or intricate questions to be consid-
| cred in the matter.
| HOW HEADQUARTERS RECEIVED 1T.
| Information that the Grand Jury had refused
| to indict Inspector Williams and Captain
| Schmittbcrger reached the Central Office yester-
| day afternoon when the Police Commissioners
| were I'm session. Immediately after the adjourn
ment Of the meeting Inspector Williams, who
| had been in consultation with Superintendent
| Byrnes was close ted with Mr. Martin fer n