The Portland daily press., 1900-12-01
And Have Discharged Messrs- French
and Wiggin.
These Men Claim They
Are Not Discharged,
And That the Committee Has
No Power to Remove.

Engineer O. p French Of Engine 8
and Alfred Wiggin Of Engine 3, were no
titled yesterday forenoon by Chief Engi'
nser Eldridge that they had been dis
charged from the fire department by
vote of the committee on fire department
Of the city government and their services
would no longer be required by the city.
The reason for the discharge was the
charges which had been made against
these men. Mr.. French was charged
with the use of Intoxicating liquors and
Mr.. wiggin with neglect Of duty.
At noon yesterday, Lieutenant Rowe
OF the chemical, engine, was sent to En-
CINE SIS house to take Mr.. Virgins place,
ana spare engineer Howe was placed on
duty at Engine 8, while Frank Carr was
put on the chemical engine in Lieuten-
ant Rowe's place. When 1t became
known that the committee on fire depart
ment had ordered these men discharged
there was great deal Of talk made, al
though something OK the kind had been
rumored was about 20 take place for sew
ernl days.
As soon as he was notified of his dis
charge by formal communication from
the office Of the chief engineer, MIR. Wig
gin retained MIR. Wilford u. Chapman rs
his attorney, and together these gentle
men called upon Chief Eldridge and Mr..
Wiegin formally announced that he was
prepared to go on duty. The Chief EnRt-
neer informed MIR. Miggin and his al
tornsy of the action Of the committee on
fir department., and after some talk they
withdrew. Mr.. Wiggin intends to tight
the case, and MIR. Chapman has been re-
tainea for that purpose by him. Mr..
French, 1t is stated, will also make a
fight for his position. Both Of these men
claim that the committee on fire depart
ment have no authority to discharge
them, and that they are still In the en-
ploy OF - city.
The first step which was made In these
cases was at the October meeting OF the
City Council. There had been a nesting
OF the board of engineers of the fire de
partment and the fire committee previ-
GUS to the city government meeting,
and the board of engineers had recon-
mended the discharge or these two engi-
neers for the reasons stated. When the
aldermen and common council were In
joint session for the purpose OF electing
subordinate city officers Alderman Thom-
as arose and read a communication from
the fire committee. In this communica-
ton 1t was STATED that the committee had
received charges against these two engi-
nsers, and had recommended their dismis-
sal to the fire committee. Alderman
Thomas made no suggestions as to what
should be done, but at later meeting OF
the city council an order was introduced
authorizing the fire committee to prepare
formal charges and submit them to the
city council. This order had passage.
but no report was received from the fire
committee until the last meeting OF the
city council. when the committee asked
for further time.
In the meantime the committee had de-
cided that they had the power TO remove
these men without the concurrence OF the
cits council. The engineers OF the fire de-
pal pent are chosen by the city council
in at convention, as are other subor-
dinate city officers. The committee, so
not subordinate city officers, but are
members OF the fire department, and,
therefore, under their Jurisdiction. An
old ordinance provided that members OF
the fire department could be removed On
recommendation of the board OF engi-
neers the city council having final action
In the case. This ordinance, so It lie
stated, has been amended so that the
final action In the matter Is had by the
committee on fire department.. Contend
ing that the steam tire engineers who are
chosen on Joint ballot by tine city council
each year are not subordinate city OFF,
cers, but are simply members Of the fire
department and, therefore, that the above
mentioned ordinance is applicable to
them, the fire committee has claimed the
right to discharge Messrs. French and
Wiggin.-
None OF the fire committee who were
seen yesterday would discuss this matter.
They said That the men had been dis
charged by the committee like any other
members OF the lire department, and that
was all there was to the matter. When
Mr. Chapman, attorney for Mr.. Wiggin,
was seen, he said; "Mr. wiggin claims
that he has not been discharged. The
city council has taken no action in this
matter. His removal, II 10 were valid.
Is q high-handed proceeding, and is not
justifiabls. Mr.. wiggin was not accorded
o hearing. was NOT confronted with the
witnesses against himi has not received
any formal statement Of the charges made
against him, and has had no opportunity