The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-03-18
THE CHARGES.

lnent thereon. The specifications of
the charges thereof are as follows:
THE CHARGES.
Charge First-Neglect of duty.
Specification THAT on the 9th day
of January 1896. al said Salt Lake
city, the said James DeVine. in viola
ton Of his duty as chief engineer of the
fire department of said city. failed and
neglected TO promptly respond to
public alarm of fire in said city, the
fire which occasioned said alarm be-
ing in a dwelling house at $40 South
Ninth East street in said Salt Lake
city.
Specification 2-That on the 10th day
of January, 1896. at said Salt Lake city.
the said James Devine. in violation of
his duty as chief engineer OF the fire
department OF said city. failed and
neglected to respond to a public alarm
of fire in said city, the fire that occa-
stoned said alarm being in a dwelling
house at 735 Third street in said Salt
Lake city.
Specification S-That on the 18th day
of January. 1856, at said Salt Lake city
the said James Devine. in violation of
his duty as chief engineer of the fire
department OF said city failed and
neglected to respond 10 a public alarm
of fire in said city. the fire which coca
stoned said alarm being in the Lincoln
school building on Fifth South street
between Third and Fourth West streets
IN said Salt Lake city.
Specification 4-That on the 18th day
- February. 1896. at said Salt Lake
city. the said James Devine in viola
ton of his duty as chief engineer of the
IRE department. failed and neglected to
promptly respond to public alarm of
IRE IN said city, the fire which occa-
stoned said alarm being in store
building at 227 South Main street in
said Salt Lake city.
Specification 5-That on divers DAYS
and times between the TIN of January
and the 18th day of February. 1896 at
Salt Lake City. the said James .Deyina
chief engineer of the fire department I'm
said city, was guilty of habitually neg
Iectmg his duties as such chief engi-
neer by misspending his time away
from said department and in attend
ence upon the legislature of the state
of Utah, then in session at the joint
city and county building. in said Salt
Lake City, for the purpose of lobbying
and soliciting and influencing the votes
of the mem bers of said legislature in
favor of a certain bill then and there
pending. having relation to the police
and fire departments of said Salt Lake
City. and known as senate bill No. s.
TO the manifest detriment of .the said
fire department, of which he is the
Grief, and the evil and pernicious eN-
ample Of his subordinate officers and
men.
STRICKEN OUT.
The specification under charge sec
ond, having been considered by the
board TOO general in its allegation. ara
particularly with reference to the long
period Of time covered by it. was. upon
objection, stricken out and not c-nsid-
cred.
IT Is SUSTAINED.
Specification 1.-The evidence shows
that an alarm was rung in about 12:Sa
(noon) just after the department hxi
returned from the Inauguration pa
rade. That ii was a box alarm regis
sering the box No. 215 on the tape. but
No. on the indicator. That Lieuten-
ant Mccartney went up u the chiefs
private Office tor instructions and was
directed to take out the hose wagon
which ne did. arriving at the fire in
perhaps ten minutes: the chief then
went to dinner and in about thirty
minutes drove out 10 the fire, arriv-
ing a bout the time The water was be-
ing turned off. IT appears further from
the evidence that the alarm was rung
in from box 2l5 until about thirty
minutes after the discovery oSthe fire
Irregular alarms through various
causes which arrest the attention of
the department that do not call it into
action until they are verified: but ii
also appears that this was a box
alarm: that 1t did register the box
number. and that there had not hesn
a false box alarm before. Therefore we
think it was The duty of the chief to
have led the way in search for This
fire. eynd therefore sustain this specfI-
cation
Specification 2-The evidence shows
thar this alarm was answered by the
DEPARTMENT under the direction
of the assistant chief engineer;
tlrat the chief did not respond
but because as 1t appears from
his own testimony he was engaged at
the time in and about the public bust
ness OF the department. While we af-
firm the general rule to be that the
CHIEF of the fire department is expected.
and win be required to attend all
alarms of fire, we concede that Of ne
cessity there must be and are excep-
tions to the general rule, and we find
that this instance furnishes an excep-
ton and that the excuse of the chief
is a valid one Therefore we do not
sustain this specification.
SPECIFICATION 8
The alarm was rung in in this case
for the Lincoln school building on the
west side and was answered by the
assistant chief. The chief did not re-
spond. He was unable to say where
he was upon this occasion and gave
no reason except as hereinafter stated
for his absence. But, it appears from