New-York tribune., 1900-04-01
THE GRAND JURTS PRESFNTMENT

The reasons given by the March Grand Jury
for its failure TO 90 higher than Captain Thomas
while making war on police partnership with
crime are of more value than many indictments.
By throwing obstacles before the Grand Jury
the District Attorney has revealed clearly to
the public the character of our city government
and the criminal solidarity of all its branches In
a way that might not have been understood if
he had with even Indifferent zeal left the jury a
free hand 10 strike where ii would. At the
sam time he has brought upon himself one of
the most serious Of the many charges on which
he is in danger Of being removed. The Grand
Jury's presentment is enc that cannot be ig-
nored or laughed away either by the accused
heads OF the Police Department or hy District
Attorney Gardiner The responsibility cf Chief
Devery and the Police Commissioners for the
purchased protection of criminals is matter Of
official record which must call for the attention
of the criminal courts and the diligent study
of the next Grand Jury. The accusa ton against
Mr. Gardiner. if well founded. must make neces-
sary his removal Even he himself understands
and anticipates the inevitable by asking the Gov
ernor to include the new charge among the sub
jects of the pending inquiry.
The Grand Jury's explanation of the small re-
suits Of its work is the only compatible with
belief in the honesty and ability of its study OF
police administration. When 1t was understood
that the Indictment of Captain Thomas was the
crown Of its labors much disappointment
expressed. Everybody knew perfectly well that
Captain Thomas only fgurehead, and
that if he should be indicted the men back of
him, whose business was TO know what he
doing who evidently did know what he was
doing and upheld him in it, should be indicted
also. Why had not the Grand Jury gone to the
-. NAG II too afrs nd NIL
ing to find a scapegoat and let the matter drop?
The Grand Jury answers that every effort
ITO fix the responsibility for criminal neglect
'.upon the officials in high command or upon
"those in administrative control of the Police
Department has been persistently discouraged
'and headed off, by the District Attorney. In
other words he. the sworn prosecutor of crime
and the legal adviser and assistant Of the Grand
Jury was in league with unfathful and Grim
inal officials and using his power TO prevent the
Grand Jury from doing its duty.
No Grand Jury would make such charge
lightly and without good reason. No unfaithful
Grand Jury would ever have gone so far with
investigation as to make explanation of it's
astonishing failure to go further necessary. No
faithful Grand Jury could have been deferred
from doing what ii was so clearly called on to
do except by just such official obstacles as IL
alleges the District Attorney put in its way.
The presumption. therefore is IN favor of the
Grand Jury and against Mr.. Gardiner. The Dis
frfct Attorney has made it more so by his pre-
yious perversion of his powers 10 crafty his
personal feelings and his frequent unseemly
souabbles with the courts, and Il would surprise
few people TO know that becarse of personal
spite he had Captain Thomas indicted and then
shielded the higher officers Of the Tammany ad-
ministration who are responsible for Captain
Thomas's acts
Xlis presentment is something which cannot