The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-09-25
DISMISSED WITHOUT CAUSE,
Sensational Testimony Before The Re-
tF6IChmslt Committee
BY The DISCHARGED CITY EMPLOYEES.
The Committee Recommends Their keins
statement and the Investigation OF
Charges gainst Dr. Oppenheimer
and Ofscer Walton,

The Committee on Retrenchment and
Reform held an exceedingly Interesting
meeting last night. and for the space OF
four hours was engaged ia investigating
the charge brought by Eve employees OF
the Health Department that they had
been discharged by Sanitary Officer John
G.. Walton without cause.
The evidence showed clearly that the
men had been dismissed from the de-
partmcnt without investigation, and that
they were guntless Of the charge brought
by Omcer walton that they had visited
chief Of Police Howard for the purpose Of
having him CWalton) removed in favor
OF Omccr Buck Angle.
The testimony also seemed 10 indicate
that officer Walton had occasionally used
the citys hands and carts for his own
personal ends. Further, there was evl-
dence to show that the President or the
Board Of Health. some years ago, hao
permitted city employees 90 go 10 the
polls ON election day 90 work for GER
tain candidate. and that the day thus
consumed had been paid for by the city,
THE COMMITTEE'S REIORT.
These facts having been asccrtained the
committee went into executive session.
and formulated the following report:
That the charge Of INSTRUMENTATION
against tho men was found 10 be not true.
and that the specifications of their having
waited unon the Chief of Police for the
purpoeo of having Mr.. Johnson walton
removed was without foundation or tact
from the testimony OF that ofhcer HIM
self. We therefore. recommend that the
Committee on Health re-instaie MessIa.
Ford Brlnch Kennedy. Johnson ana
cole. and that they De paid per diem TOT
the time they could have made from lhe
time OF their discharge TO tho time OK
their Reinstatement
Second. Whereas Sanitary Inspector
walton made q report 10 the President OF
the Board Of Health Of "a charge against
the men. without foundation, ana upon
hearsav evidence. and without proper Ell
fort ON IFS Part TO secure the facts ln Inc
case ae they existed. upon which charge
tho mon aroro discharged. we recommend
that Nr. Walton Doe returned TO the po-
Hco force. with q request that the Board
az Police Commissioners investigate his
conduct.
Third That 90 the opinion Of your COM
mittce. from the evidence adduced, me
President of the Board Of Health acted
hastily and without effort ON his part
go obtain the facts boz the case peloIe
dischlrcinc Tho men.
Fourth. whereas from Information OBJ
tanned in the Investigation by your COM
mittoe. TO the eject that the city pro-
uorfv. hands. and carts controlled by the
Health Department have been made use
of for private purposes. and the heaItn
employees have been permitted TO work az
the polls on election day ON pay from
tho city. we recommend that further IN
tcsugation of tho department be made.
CAUSE OF THE MEETING
AIR. Romtroe called the committee TO
order shortly after o'clock, there being
prcscfs Messrs. uarrelsOr, Jones, John
L. King. Noble and Ebel. Mr.. Rountree
stated tho cause fer the meeting; namely
Tho complaint of certain employees or the
Hca1to Department that they had been
uniusDy discharged from that depart
mont and claiming that they had been
misrcprcsontcd py Sanitary officer John
L. walton.
A number OF tho onrlainants were on
hand. and Dr Oppcuhimer president or
the Board o. 'cal.h. was also present by
request OF tho committee
Tho committee first heard the complaint
OF John C.. Branch. one OF the discharged
men. Hc claimed that he had been dis
charged by officer Walton on account or
holdings meetings. at the city Hall The
meeting referred 90. said the witness was
a. purely accidental one between himself
and two other employees In the Police
Court one morning when the force was
not at work.
me next day. said Branch Omcer wal
ton came TO him and after accusing him
or attending a meeting OF employees at
tho City Hail. discharged him.
The witness claimed that his discharge
was due solely 60 prejudice, that he had
never done anything meuung % dismiss
sal
r. u. Ford. tho next witness, said that
ne thought he was discharged because he
was accused Of going to Chief Howard 8
offco 90 secure the removal of officer
Walton and pot Mr. Angle I'm his place.
Mr Fond positively denied that he had
ever been % Chief Howard's Office on any
such mission.
The witness further said that ne had
heard afterwards that he had been dis
charged for losing tirtc, he having been
sick Tor two months.
WORKED FOR WALTON.
"Dd Mr.. Walton ever put you 10 work
on his own personal property while you
were working for the city?' asked Cap
tain king.
The witness replied that ho had on one
occasion worked for nearly day on Mr.
walton's house trying TO jack it up
where it mad sunk
on another occasion he had hauled some
lumber for Mr. Walton Mr.. Grant ana
MI Robertson. said the witness had also
worked for Mr. Walton IN the city's time
Mr. j. r. Johnson. was next heard lie
Favo tho same version OF his DISCHARGE
as the FIRST witness. Mr.. Branch. In addi-
tlon. tho witness said ne had been told
ny Mr Walton that no discharged him
Tor saying that Mr. Holdscraft was
nice man. and a go'd sanitary officer.
Mr. Johnson said that when discharged
ne was acting as foreman.
The witness said he himself had never
worked on Mr. Waltons house, but had
once sent a man by Mr. Walton's orders
20 help raise Mr.. Walton's house so s1me
Dirt could be put under It.
1'he witness also said ne had heard
that members of the force had been sent
by Dr. Oppenhimer 20 80 20 the polls on
election day 20 work for the election OF
certain councilmen.
a...fs f-.nr.. fNns ,.,serff cotN Tho