New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-08-01
Mr. OSBORNE on TIE POLICE.

We are not in the least inclined TO sympa-
thize with the criticism Of Assistant District
Attorney Osborne for spending $500 on prl-
vate detectives ia the Adams murder case. No
doubt he needed the money. There have been
some indications that he should have spent more.
Perhaps if he had employed four times as
many detectives he might have been saved the
six months Of bungling and illegal proceed
ings with which he has protracted this case
Indeed we think he is quite modest In the mat
fer of mourning bills for extra services for
work ordinarily done by the police and the
force of the District Attorneys office. He
would have been justified not merely In get
ting the aid Of private detectives, but also III
securing the assistance Of competent private
counsel In fact there would have been no
occasion for surprise If the city had been made
to pay the charges for the services OF the emil
nent lawyer who at the Coroner's inquest sat
beside Mr.. Gardiner and gave him such valu-
able assistance in solving the mystery, and in
cldentaly looking after the interests OF pr1-
vate client who for business reasons was anx-
ious TO see Molneux indicted. His counsel and
suggested examinations were doubtless highly
useful to the District Attorney, and good pub
lie policy requires that lawyers in any way
engaged in prosecution should be compensated
from the city treasury and not be In the pay Of
individuals or corporations with private ends
TO serve.
No indeed we shall not complain OF Mr..
Osborne's detective bills, nor even of Mr.. Os-
borne's assurance that II Is none Of the pub
| lies business why he felt called upon to sup
plement the Police Detective Bureau ex-
tensively. Mr.. Gardiner, as the public has
often been informed is a constitutional Off
| GER" which, Of course removes him from the
| impairment questonings, though not from the
awestruck gaze Of the vulgar herd and prob
| ably the Constitution can be stretched to cover
| Mr. Osborne as well. Anyhow Mr.. Osborne
| saws this detective matter Is his business and
| after the six months exhibition Of illegal in
dctments and pettifogging in the District At
| tOrney's office we are too much delighted to
| learn that anybody there has any business
| and knows it to interfere with Mr.. Osborne S
business. even If it is only employing detec-
tives. Moreover, 1t might give aid TO accused
persons TO make public the reasons for adopt
| Ing private detectives into the public service
If. for instance, in the Adams case the Dis
trict Attorney had found II convenient to adopt
the results Of labors performed by detectives
working against Molineux in the employ OF
private persons he would not, OF course, want
that known. case would be weakened be
fore jury, no matter how well put together
If understood to be built up originally for pr
vate ends. Privately gathered information car
he worthy Of It's cost TO the public only wher
defendant cannot plead n private motive OF
interest or revenge for its collection. OF course
we do not mean to say that any such adop
ton Of extra official and officious services was
made in this case. We only mention this as
one Of the possible emergencies which might
confront prosecutor in the detection of crime
He must have liberty 10 take such measures al
he chooses, and the more the public might crit
icise those measures the more necessary II /,
for an officer TO consider them strictly his owl
business.
But there is one thing Mr.. Osborne says tina
cannot be passed over so lightly. Not that We
care, but the city administration ought to, fo