The daily morning journal and courier., 1894-12-28

tageous to them; ana furthermore that trade has been solicited by agents and even probably by policemen for com missioners in the soda-water business pp. cos. 5ii. ia.6l6. ls. 6st. 652. 655, bSs. 562-s6, cal. &c.
 (0 Direct acts Of interference with the police on the part of Commissioner Giihuiy. as charged. are in evidence, These acts Of interference. as appears from the testimony. have been of two kinds. The first kind consists of cause less and wanton interferences with po- licemen in the discharge Of their duty, acts usually committed by Mir. Gilhu- ly when he had just come out of the same saloon. Four officers have testi- fled to such interference: one of these made complaint of Mir. Gilhuly's act to his captain. and the captain reported It to the superintendent. The chief. how ever. had no power to protect the of- fcer against the insolent interference of the commissioner. In one Of these instances Mir. Gilhuly Is represented as kind Of mad" and in another as com ing from a saloon In an excited" con dition. Besides these instances. Mir. Gilhuly's habit may Do inferred from the testimony of one'o the officers that he blows his whistle for the police." p. 40S. The discipline of the depart ment requires that complaints against officers should be made by commission CTS, as by other citizens, through the regular official channels: and, though somewhat more privilege of ordering around patrolmen might be ac- corded to a commissioner, even his destructive of discipline when he'rushes In an excited manner out of saloons, and late at night is "kind of mad" and when, moreover. as another officer tes- tifies, he has "a great habit of calling officers"
 The second kind of acts of interfer- ence on the part of MT. Gilhuly are more serious, and, unless sufficient evi- dence in rebuttal can be shown, they are acts directly impeachable. On three separate occasions Commissioner Gil- huly, according to the testimony before you, has interfered with officers In a manner to discourage and hinder the enforcement of the liquor law. Any one of these three acts, If clearly prov ed, would be of itself sufficient cause for his removal from office. The first in evidence was his conversation with an officer on the corner of Church and Grown streets relative to two saloons. He asked an officer wby he did not raid one saloon. where MT. Clancey's soda water was sold. saying that he did not care for the trade, and he did not think MT. Clancy cared for 1t either. Then to the same officer he complained that another policeman on an adjoining beat was "crowding one of his customers altogether too hard" And. according to the testimony, he had sought two nights for the officer to have this little business talk with him, and "he seemed very much in earnest about it," pp. 207-8, 21S. I claim that a commissioner who will talk with policeman in that manner concerning his competitors in- terest in a saloon, and who complains of another officer for crowding enc of his own customers, is unfit for hls po- sition, and ought not to be allowed fur ther opportunity to mix up in that man. ner his bottling interests with police duties. In this instance the officer drew, and could draw, but one conclu- sion as to MT. Gilhuly's desire not to have the law enforced against his per sonal profit.
 The second oftense in evidence was direct, specific and unmistakable. pp. SoS-40O. MT. Gilhuly, coming again out of a saloon and hailing an officer, took him to task for watching saloon on Sunday, which saloon, it is in evidence, has the reputation of doing a lively Sunday business. MT. Gilhuly, read ing his oath of office backwards in re- gard to sustaining and encouraging every officer in the faithful discharge of his duty, told this patrolman "not to hang round those saloons so much" The officer explained that the priest had complained of them, to which Commis- sioner Gilhuly replied, What in hell does he care for, he has hfs." Having received this forcible rebuke from the commissioner. the officer walked away; whether MT. Gilhuly returned to the saloon from which he had emerged to jump on a faithful officer does not ap pear from the evidence; but the saloon kept right on doing an illegal Sunday business under the profane protection of Commissioner Gilhuly. He should be removed because he interrered with an officer who was watching saloon which had been complained of by a faithful priest. The effect of his action in this instance has been the effect in- tended; as the report of it has become current among the men, it has not led to greater zeal on their part in the en- forcement of law; 1t is of itself suffi- cient to explain remarks, whlc1 the ev-' idence shows are current among officers in that precinct, to the effect that they would lose their places if they saw too much. f,e', -.'~
 Still another act of MT. Gilhuly, which is in evidence, has weight in con- nection with other testimony. One of the most persistent and defiant law breakers had been raided by the police; it appears that immediately after the raid Commissioners Clancy and Gill huly sought out one of the officers who made the raid-one of them visiting him in his home, the other finding him on the. street-and inquired particularly of him how bad the evidence was. The officer could not remember all the con- versation which ensued. and testified with reluctance; but he said that the