New-York tribune., 1899-08-12

soners IN imposing lenient punishment on nemoers
OF the force For the purpose Of. in part proving
this he summoned before the committee large
number OF officers who. according 10 his state
ment had previously been before the Connlls-
sioners 10 answer charges and whose cases hao
been disposed Of one way or another by the con-
missoners In this way he seeks 70 show tnat
the Commissioners enient in their disposition
Of the cases As well might he have summoned
persons accused Of offences in OF the courts
of the city and asked them what they thought OF
the judges or jury who had heard thew cases
and inflicted a punishment upon them
From Mr. Mosss experience in the Police De-
partrnert he knows as well I. that while
charge upon .ts face may appear 70 De serious II
many cases the evidence submitted IN support @,
such charge changes very materially The serious
ness Of the offence. and while the charge against
the oricer may be that Of intoxicaton the evil
dence produced sustain such charge may not
be sufficient 70 justify : conviction which Vcud
Justify the imposition OF dismissal from the force
IN view OF the decision Of the court IN cases O.
this kind In December 1897 Herman 3 GeroU
was tried before Commissioner Moss on two charges
for intox!cation and the charges we're dismissed
In September 1885 Gerop dismissed from the
force bv the present Beard or conviction ~
charges
The record Of the trial ~ the Police De-
partrnent is open TO the public and the hearing and
daily and 7 think without fear Of contradiction
that the disposition OF cases BY the members of the
present Board OF Police will bear comparison @
the advantage OF the present Board with any
Board OF Commissioners that preceded II The
Board Of Commissioners that preceded dismissed
4 large number Of men from the force upon trivial
charges and the records IN those cases show tnat
there was no justification for the imposition OF
sentence Of dismissal and this Is verified by the
subsequent action OF the courts IN reinstating such
persors Tventv-four patrolnen who were dls-
missed from the force By the preceding Board OF
Commissioners renstated by the action OF the
courts and large number OF cases are sun peno-
ing before the courts. and Judging from the action
in the other cases II IS safe 70 assume that most
Of these will be restored ..rnF
Cases were very carelessly tried bv the pre-
vious Commissioners This statement is made from
an examination OF the records. I claim 70 be able
20 try and determine any that NAV be brought
before me iust as well any other gentleman in
the CITY OF New-York whether he is an ex-Com-
missioner OF Police or not and when Try case
am as capable OF determining what Is the proper
punishment 70 rnets the facts proven as VT
Moss.
There is no denoralizat!on n the police >orce.
1ts efficiency is as good to-day II not better
than II has been. and It's action within me
last sixty DAYS has proved It's efficiency and ABILITY
~ cope with any situation that can arse Wltnin
the city
Mr. Moss called q number Of persons Wit
nesses among others Patrolman keenan,. whose
case was decided without reference 70 anything
that might occur before the Mazet Committee and
he was dismissed from the force at this time be
cause in the judgment OF the Commissioners. such
dismissal was proper. He not dsmisse1 on
the charges previously tried against him. because
in the Judgment Of the Commissioners. he should
not have been dismissed.
Jeremiah Moran. patroman, whose praises for
honesty and faithful service are so loudly pro
nfT-
cor who has given every commanding officer IN
whose precinct he has been great deal Of trouble
on December o. 1887 he tried on charges pc
fore Commissioner Moss. and Commissioner Moss
10 transfer him from the precinct that ne was theh
in to an uptown precinct
The charge to the payment Of the doaT ere re-
ferred to was investigated by Commssioner h2ose
Welt during his term and ne decided tiat e6 ~ bv
chief McCulagh and myself and found to De aoso-
Moran has had PRIOR 10 the first day Of January
1sS eighteen charges agdlnss nii am aeainst
MIN: one OF them being serious charge trled De
fore myself anG upon Wd wGh T. n veTy serious ques
ton but that ne should have been dismissed from
bene; Of the doubt He has not been cnnI: IN 5hy
sense prosecuted by either the previous md
sioners or by the present Commissioners he s1 nsT
haze no fear OF persecution from any one within
tbe departnent 50 long as he performs his duty
a. since my entrance into the dePartgmene e5STs there
,.Nr Moss refers 10 the case OF Sergeant Porter;
~ the Church-st. station. That case was tlsq
bv myself and the disposition OF II was right anu
proper upon the facts disclosed az tle Uial -od
The present Police Commissioners dlscoVrItu
so nucn carelessness in the disposition OF cases
tried before their coming into the department tha
thev adopted what they believe TO be a correct
policy that dismissal from the force only foI,o"SS
rorvictions OF offences where in the judgment oI
the Commissioners such conviction would have 10
be approved by the courts a
ne calls attention to the fact Of diamonds ana
expensive jewelry having been purchased by poncs-
men and that the Police Commissioners on coin-
MA int made 10 them would not compel such oiH-
Gers 70 pay the debts created by reason or such
purchases am responsible for the refusal ot tne
department TO compel the payment OF such deD.5,
and I want 10 state that II any one CHOOSES
To sell a member OF the Police Department uld-
monds or other expensive 1ewelry on the lhs.ai-
rnent or trust plan. he will not receive assislaA.S
from a Commissioner In compelling the onlcer 70
nav any such debt. He has right 10 sell VIE tIst
kind OF luxury 10 policeman unless ne is VIZ ,ha
ing take the chance OF collecting MS money 17
same as any other business man