The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1895-04-03
against eleven police officers. There were

against eleven police officers. There were
= score OF indictments, more than one
: having been found against some OF the men.
After an exhaustive investigation and the
examination Of hundreds of witnesses the
Grand Jury also filed presentment scoring
the police anu charging the department with
corruption and degradation.
The rresentment made by the Grand Jury
was O severe arraignment Of the Police
Department and its officers. The Grand
Jury expresses the opinion that the great
body Of subordinate police officers are hon.
est and capable men, and their assistance
In the investigation would have been most
valuable; but such assistance was not rem
dered, because no orders were given by the
executive officers Of the force to their subor-
dirates to aid the Grand Jury in its delibera-
tions. The result was that the attitude Of
the department hampered the work OF the
Grand Jury. Notwithstanding that the
department was requested by the Grand
Jury, it was not given.
The presentment further says that the
Grand Jury has no doubt that 1t has been the
practice of the Police Captains for years to
receive money as brlbes for protecting viola
tors Of the law, and to extort money from
law-abiding citizens as the price CT exemp-
iion from police interference and annoyance.
In referring to Byrnes the presentment
says: "The enjoyment by the executive head
of the force of the considerable fortune &C.
cumulated as a result of favors granted In
the performance Of official duty may well
have caused Generalization cf the force
under his command. The distinction be-
tween such favors and direct gratuities Ia
not one that his subordinates are likely to
appreciate"
In conclusion the Grand Jury observes.
1.-THE existence Of the evils to which we
have referred evidences the absolute neces-
Eity of radical reorganization OF the force
by new men and new methods"
Following are the officers and ex-of1cers
Of the Police Department against whom In
dictments were handed down:
Inspector William W. Mclaughlin, Chief
Inspector in charge of the Detective Bureau,
Ave indictments; Captain Michael ]. Murphy
one indictment; Captain Jacob Siebert, one
Indictment; Captain James K. Price,
one indictment; Captain John J. Dono.
hoe, one Indictment; ex-Captain Will
lam s. Devery, ore indictment; e1-Captain
John T. Stevenson; one Indictment; e1-
Captain Edward Carpenter, one Indictment;
Patrolman Henry II. Shill, formerly ward
man, three indictments; ex-Patrolman James
Burns, formerly q wardman, one indictment;
e1-Patrolman Edward G. Glennon, formerly
. wardman, oneindictment.
With the exception of former Captain Ste
phenson, who was not arrested, and former
Wardmap Burns, who has for many months
been fugitive from justice, the indicted men
furnished bail, and were ordered to appear
and plead to the indictments.
The bail Of Inspector Mclaughlin was
placed at $40, 900; that of the others. against
!. all Of whom charges Of bribery, extortion or
attempted extortion were made. except in
the case OF Shill, against whom there was an
additional charge Of perjury, ranged from
s11 900 down to S25O0, as follows:
Captain Donohue. $4,000; Captain Sic
bert. $4,000; Captain Murphy, $40 900; Cap.
tain Price. S250O; Captain Devery, $4,000;
ex-Captain Carpenter, $4,000; ex-Wardman
shill, $1,000, and ex-Wardman Glennon
$4,000. Captain Creedeni is witness against
Inspector Mclaughlin and two other cap
tains. Captain Schmittberger also figured
again as witness.
. On receipt Of the news of the arrests,
which was officially conveyed to the Police
Commissioners by Superintendent Byrnes,
Ill the indicted officers were suspended from
duty.