New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-07-22
SUPERINTENDENT SMITHS CASE.

AN INQUIRY AS TO WHY HIS TRIAL is DELAYEn
To the Editor Of The Tribune
Sir: What has become Of the case Of the Fire
Commissioners against Superintendent j. Elliott
Smith, OF the Electrical Bureau? The public are
we'll informed as to the following facts:
That Mayor Gilroy appointed II. Winthrop Gray
as Fire Commissioner In 1893 After a few months
service with Messrs. Scanned and Eickhon, Ar.
Gray felt compelled to resign because he was
power.ess to remove any Of the evils which hs
found rankly prevalent In every department Of the
service the Fire Alarm Telegraph Bureau included
In the fall preceding Mayor Strongs election
there was public scandal against the administration
Of the Fire Alarm Bureau published In portion of
the Republican press Of the city
One of the first acts OF Mayor Strong's new
Board Of Fire Commissioners was to appoint BY
majority vote an expert to investigate the supern-
tendent's administration of the Fire Alarm Bureau.
This investigation was begun in June. 1875, and
continued nearly q year. and eliminated early IN
April 1896 In the suspension OF superintendent
Smith preliminary TO his trial upon charges sub
stantiay as follows:
First--Carelessness c. worse In the business
affairs under his charge. ana especially In his ID.
minstration OF the underground cable CONSTITUTIONAL
which, 1t was charged, has cost far more than
sbould have cost I'm a total expenditure Of about
$780, coo
Second-That the records OF the New-f York FIRE
alarm service show that 1t is in condition OF In
efficiency in that the number of failures OF boxes
to work when pulled for fire Is extraordinary
large and that the underground telegraph cable
system, which has been so recently CONSTRUCTED u
heavy cost, breaks down.
7, has become publicy known that the Fire Com
roissoners sent out circular letters OF inquiry 10
the Fire Department authorities or the ieading
Mes showing that as compared with the workings
Of fire alarm telegraphs In other cities the service
in New-York Is inefficient. .
n is but fair 10 Superintendent Smith TO say that
when he was suspended and ordered TO De placed
e,oner Sheffield voted against his removal and
claimed that his business administration was ei-
ectye ana tnas e inc and that spernendent
Smiths record showed that he stood well among
fire alarm superintendents ana was worry Ivy o.
moval from office ~
position to the entire satisfaction OF Messrs Pur:
roy. Scannell and Croker, one or The other Of
whom during long period was pres1snht . 81 'hs
the necessity OF business reform In all departments
of the Tammany city administra,ion VII ma "a.
have truth on their side when they officially state
their belief in the OF Superintendent
But this charge against superintenden Smith
important one Of whether or not he allowed NE
fre-alarm service TO get into condition which
the majority of the Board state that II is In.
Every one knows that failure OF the fre-alam
service a, any time be the cause OF an ~.
palling calamity, and surely an issue OF sucn vas.
teieera oh service Of NewYork City is or Is not IN
the highest possible state OF efficiency. should not
be left untried and allowed to drag along unsettled
from month to month.
The public have been offcsialiy informed that the
tolerably dangerous. and yet the trial OF Superin
5snd len dSss to delay
Indicates either that the charges unfounded
nannot be proved and should be withdrawn, or
hat powerful and sinister influences are at work
70 nrotect Superintendent Smith and 10 prevent his
fr.0D off oh "a f,o Va
nubiic are entitled TO know, and TO know al once
New-York July q. 1896. TAXPAYER