New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1900-03-31

who when the present crusade against open
vice was begun, loudest and most persistent
in his boasts OF what he would do 70 bring 70
justice the hackers of dives and gambling
houses. no matter how influential they might
be- is now set forth by the Grand Jury as the
real shield and bulwark OF those who fattsn
upon the vflest form Of revenue known 10 men
When the Grand Jury had handed in it's pre-
sentiment Assistant District Attorney Unger
begged the Recorder rot TO make il public Nc
wonder Such was their distrust OF Gardiner
that most OF their intercourse had been carried
on in letters, and there they all were 20 con-
front him and prevent wrigging.
VIEW OF GARDINER
Here Is what the presen1ment SAYS OF Gar
diners action in bringing about the Indictment
OF Police Captain Thomas. who had the folly
10 affront the District Attorney personally not
long ago, as fully reported in The Tribune al
the time. and in nuIlifytng the efforts OF the
Grand Jury 10 get az the captains superiors
whom they held 10 be ''crtIninaIly responsible
even TO greater degree.
The Grand Jury report thar in vha+ ,hsv
considered 10 be the public interest in the en-
forcement OF the law in our city and in the
suppression Of vice and OF evil resorts rhav
undertook inquire into and 10 secure x-ovvi
edge. as far as possible. concerninE. the work
and the methods Of the Police DeparIr,e-r - rs
relation 70 violations OF law on the parr OF the
managers OF such resorts.
They report. further. that In such sndeavor
they have failed 70 receive from the District A.
torney any practiCa bic help or effective CO.
operation He has indeed from time 70 time
stated AT length that he was ready and willing
% help and cooperate but a matter OF fact
he has rendered neither help nor cooperation
There has been at times that spaSnodic ac-
uVlty on his part, bearing more particularly
on the less important class % cases and upon
the conduct of smaller officials but every 80
fort made by the Grand Jury 10 fix the RESPONSE
1T1iY rIV.a
high command or upon those in administrative
control Of the Police Department. has been per
sistently discouraged by him and headed OF
The Grand Jury were in duty bound 20 find In
dtCtments as so advised by the District At
torney. against { comparatively inconspicuous
ofnclaL But they were Or the optniOn-and they
stated 70 the District Attorney-thar IL this
official guilty OF criminal negligence IN
permitting open violation OF law flourish IN
his precinct. his superiors were criminally re-
SpOnStble even 10 q greater degree for the
istenCe OF such conditions. The District Atto--
ney IN reply IA Iur specific written questions
stated in his specific written answers which are
hereinafter referred "a. that complaints have
been made. did he OF any violation OF
law and that he had no evidence to present on
this question OF the responsibility OF higher
official
During the term OF thar service conferences
were held and written communications were sx-
subject OF inquiry and. while the Grand Jury
proceeded far they could. and used all the
means their disposal. ana Of their motion
summoned and examined certain witnesses 70
became apparent that with the attitude main
tanned by the District Attorney nothing defnits
could be accomplished In that direction
When the Grand Jury displayed it's oackoons
by excluding Gardiner from It's roora when Dr.
Parkhurst and Supertntendent BUR- were tesu-