The Worcester spy. [volume] (Worcester, Mass.) 1898-1904, 1899-11-21
The STREETER CASE,
The City's Answer to
the Petition Has
Been Filed.
ALL THE CLAIMS ARE DENIED.
Streeter Voluntarily Gave
Up His Badge and Did
Not Report,
ALL THE CLAIMS ARE DENIED.

IeSIeIudy, III the supreme court, city
Solicitor Rugg filed the return of the
city of Worcester, respondent to the
REALTORS petition for a writ of manda-
mus in the case of Edward H. Streeter
through his counsel, filed petition
some time ago in the supreme court,
asking for a writ of mandamus
to reinstate him on the police force,
from which he had been dismissed dur
ing the term of Mayor A. B. r.
Sprague.
In the respondents answer, it ayers
in part:
First, that said petition for writ
is enormously directed to the city OF
Worcester, and that, as appears by the
subject matter thereof, said city of
Worcester, as respondent in the said
petition, is not a proper party to this
proceeding.
Without waving any rights under
the first paragraph of this return the
said city of Worcester further returns:
Second, that said chapter $50 of the
acts of the year 1888, which was duly
accepted according to it's provisions by
the city council of the clay of Worces-
ter on the twenty-eigh hay Of May,
in the year 1888, was repealed by the
provisions of chapter 444 OF the laws
of 1893, being entitled an "Aot to revise
the charter of the city of Worcester"
and that particularly by the provisions
of sections 26, Al and SIS of said act,
which sections are as follows:
The act covering sections 26, Al and
SIS are quoted.
Third, that, acting under the author
ity vested in the city council by said
section Al, the city council of the city
of Worcester did by ordinance, which
ordinance was duly approved on the
22d day of May, 1895, establish a police
department by section 10 of chapter l
of the revised ordinances of 1895, and
that said city council did further enact
by section 1, part of section 8 and Sec
ton 10 of chapter 28 of said revised
ordinances the following: Sections /, 8
and 10 are quoted.
Fourth, that rules and regulations
for the government of the police have
been duly established as authorized by
ordinance and were in force in the
year eighteen hundred and ninety six,
of which rule 81 was of the tenor fol-
lowing, that is to say, the acts for which
any member of the police force can be
punished or suspended by the chief of
police are given.
Fifth-It denies that jurisdiction of
the police department of the city of
Worcester, or authority to appoint, sus-
pend, remove or reinstate any police Of
flyer, patrolman or member of said po-
lice force, is vested in the city of Wor-
cester, but AYERS that the same is in the
mayor Of the city of Worcester, subject
to certain confrmatory powers vested
in the board of aldermen, as set forth in
paragraph of this return, and that the
power of suspension is vested in the
mayor and the city marshal, as set out
in said paragraph and paragraph of
this return.
1t admits that said Edward H. Street
err was appointed and confirmed a po-
lice officer of the city of Worcester on
was again duly confirmed as
such police officer on June II,
1888, under the provisions of
chap. 800 of the laws of 1883, and that
under said appointment he duly quail
fled and served, and that he acted as a
police officer of the city of Worcester
until the 18th day of February, 1896,
and that on the 18th day of February,
1896, he was suspended from the police
force by the chief of police by order
of the tenor following, that is to say:
The order of suspension is given, and
the letters from e. T. Raymond, then
chief of police to Gen. A. B. r. Sprague,
then mayor.
Following these letters are copies of
the various orders and the proceedings
of the board of aldermen.
Seventh-That on several different
dates between the 18th day of Feb
ruary, 1885, and the oath day of March,
1896, said Edward H. Streeter had in
terviews with Augustus B. r. Sprague,
the then mayor of the city of Worces-
ter, and was given by said mayor the
fullest opportunity to be heard as to
al! matters concerning his suspension
and removal, and that said relator Of
fered all such evidence and made all
such statements to said mayor, as he
desired.
Eighth-That on or about the 22d day
of February, 1896, the petitioner, with
out special request or order, and vol
UNFAIRLY surrendered his badge and
other equipments of police officer to
the police department of the city of
Worcester and has never since said or
der of removal petitioned said board of
aldermen for reinstatement, nor has he
at any time prior to the 30th day of
September, 1899, offered himself for SER
vice to the police department of said
city of Worcester and that he has been
otherwise engaged and employed dur
ing most of the time from said oath day
of March to the bringing Of this petit
ton
Ninth-It says that on the 10Th day of
June 1899, the relator filed a petition
with the board of aldermen of the city
of Worcester setting out substantially
the same facts as to his appointment
and removal as a police officer of the
city of Worcester as alleged in his pres
ent petition praying that the board of
aldermen would take such action in
the premises as will secure to your petit
toner Ills rights as a permanent officer
in said police force. and will determine
his status in said force; that the rec
ord of the board of aldermen upon said