The morning times., 1895-09-22
PROCTOR lssEIDNtRITED
The Commissioners Approve the
Findings Of the Trial Board. !
MR.. TRUEsDELL's 's REVIEW
Detective Acted in nObediencet toOrders
of His Superior Officer and Only
Employed Methods Customary in
Such Cases-Cha n&e in Police Nam
ual Suggested. Is.S N

ual Suggested. l.h ,lS
Ifti8r sassia-sl;., ~ Igaal1z. s.es.,,.1i
The District Commissioners yestcrda,
approved the findings of the trial boar,
upon the investigation made of the charge
against Detective Charles W. Proctor, Ii
the Maxwell case. for the enforcement O
the Edmunds law. laa G
The trial board returned. Proctor mo
guilty" and the action OF the Commissioner
exonerates him from blame, upon the
grounds that he was acting under order
of his superior officer, in accordance witt
the manual, and strictly in line with bil
duty as an officer detailed to perform
detective duty. .s-..5.-. a .-e..-,. +. -.
1t is also a conclusion that he should
not be held responsible for the law which
he attempted to enforce, nor for the
attempt to enforce 1t on the part OF those
whose duty 1t was to do SO by the usual
and only effective means employed IL
such cases. 49,
Commiss ioner Truesdell reviewed the
testimony 1t great length, prefacing 1t with
| the remark that on account tOfthesensational
character of the case, and the great public
interest 1t has excited; also because OF the
volurninous and conflicting character of
much OF the testimony, he felt 1t to be
necessary TO give the matter most careful
| consideration
MR.. TRUEsDELL's REVIEW
After rcciting the charges in detail Mr..
| Truesde,l says the theory upon which the
prosecution was conducted was that Proc
| tor was not only guilty of all that was
charged In the specifications, but that he
had been q cloee friend of Main's,' re-
ferring to the man W hom the detective was
alleged 10 have co-operated with in the
raid made at Main s houseu upon the roomoc-
cupied by Maxw FL. and his companion, Miss
lyman 1t was in the enforcement of the
Edmunds law that the midnight visit was
made TO Maxweil's room. --f ~is.y -z'
Itwas also the belief. Mr.. Truesdellstates,
that Proctor ordered Main to procure
evidence; that he hacsyisited Mans house
in that matter prior to June 10, The date
upon which he swore he lad made his first
visit in company with Detective Rhodes, and
that his first interview with Mr.. Mullow-
ney, prosecutor, was on Saturday, June g,
instead of June 10, as sworn TO both by
Proctor and Holinberger.
In short that Proctor had undertaken the
case without instructions frern his superior
officer. and that, in his zeal to make a case,
he had brought discredit upon the police
department by 8t:opting methods of pro-
curing evidence heretofore unknown, and
in violation of the rules governing the Metro
poiitan force. o.
Aside from some contradictory tcst-
nIony of Main, concerning the visits made
to his residence by Proctor, Main being
SO confused, Mr.. Tucsdell observes, as
to make his testimony unreliable, there
is not particle uf evidence that Proctor
ever had a word uf tonimunicatiou with
Main concerning the case prior to the
9Th or 10th of June, when Main visited
him and Hollinberger at their offices and
sought Pructor's assistance
The desired aid was refused. as was
shown. until after Hollinberger gave him
orders to take Main over TO see Mullo why.
Proctor did make one visit 10 Mains
alone, on the 11th of June.
1.-The material facts from this time
down to the arrest of Maxwell and his
companion is shown in the testimony.
Proctor's guilt or innocence" the Com
IulsslbutT says. WbCtuti hC
was authorized by Hollinberger or Null
lowney and the rules of the department
to make the visits, and to do what he
did, in Mains house, to secure the evidence
against Maxwell and lyman.
REMARKABLE DIFFERENCES.
The police manual, paragraph 14S, is
quoted as his authority from atsource, and
Mullowney's evidence to the effect that his
office is often called upon by the police de-
partment to assist in working up cases is
referred to. 1t is also stated that precinct
same way in similar cases, when the parties
Interested were less prominent.
There is a wide difference Commits
sioner Truesdell says, between the versions
given by Mullowney and Hollinberger, of the
conversation between them, ,whenMullowney
made application for Proctor's assistance
The testimony is then given in detail, the
sum (which isthat Mullowneysaysh sheasked
for Proctor to serve the warrant, while
Hollinberger swears that Mullowney asked
for Proctor to do some work for him, and
that he said: Tell Proctor to go to Mains
tonight and he will be able to give him
all the evidence he will need in the case"
''No matter what the misunderstanding
may have been Hollinberger's note to
Proctor shows that he (Proctor) went to
Mains house nat evening with orders from
his lieutenant to get evidence of the only
kind that would enable to make case.
HE reported the results of his first and
all subsequent visits to Mains house to
his official superior, Hollinberger, and
when Rhodes was taken way from him he
demanded the assistance OF another officer
and Gallaher was detailed.
WHY A DETECTIVE?
'.If Mullowney only wanted warrant
served, why did be need detective? He
had his own deputy marshal and the serv-
ices of the lieutenant of the precinct were
at his command" 81.
Proctor and dMainreportedtoM MullowDeyon
the 18th of June and Mullowney testifies
to having told Main that he could shove
the door open. Main said he would break
the lock, but afterward said be could use
a duplicate key.
1T is not MATERIAL the Commissioner
states, whether Mullowney told Proctor
or Main 10 shove the door in, the fact that he
Told Main in Proctor's presence that he
could shove the door open,' which he ad- |
mits, shows that they had right to enter,
even IL they were not SO instructed by Null |
lowney, that they were to arrest the parties |
In the room which they occupied together, |
In order TO complete the evidence. Upon |
any other theory, all this talk about show |
10 door oy,n 1x,o,,,.7 haa,. nca1oeo