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

Jury In any way interfere with the District At
torney in the exercise Of what he called ms 1S
prerogetive with his being present al All
times with the Grand Jury. except only IN the
OF two witnesses. who requested permis-
without the presence or interference of the Dis
trct Attorney. To the request OF these Two
witnesses the Grand Jury conceded as In their
opinion the giving Of their evidence In the man
ner desired by them likely to further the
understanding by the jury of the matters unoer
consideration
The right of the Grand Jury to exercise this
discretion in such cases has already been oe,
termfned by this court In all other cases ala
in relation every subject of inquiry the DIS
trict Attorney has been afforded full opportunity
not only in being present but in examining VII
nesses and advising the Grand Jury, ana ne mas
been urged and requested TO produce and TO ex-
anime all witnesses whose attendance and testi-
mony he could
From the evidence presented to the eJranu
jury. and from all the facts and circumstances
which have appeared it is their Judgment that
with a capable and earnest District Attorney,
who would, spasmodically, but lnslstently
and persistently, take adequate measures for
the collection of evidence of violations of law,
and who would prosecute such violators with
expedition and with due diligence, and who
would insist that the officials whose duty II lis
10 enforce the law should do their full duty, the
Police Department would find it both difficult
and dangerous to permit or to tolerate certain
conditions in city which are almost Migrant
in their defiance Of law and order
POLICE ADMINISTRATION.
The Grand Jury does not mince words when IT
rotten system of police maladministration under
Devery and its language proves that 1t was
anxious to indict even Commissioners If Gardi-
ner had not obstructed them Here is an ex-
tract on that head:
The jury could not but be impressed with the
fact that many of the officials of the Police De-
psriment who are more particularly charged
under the law with the supervision of disorderiy
places and with the suppression of those IN
which the lew is violated. are apparently COM
,afa Nv iyyan rant ~
Roundsmen. detectives, captains. inspectors
and the Chief Of Police himself have all sworn to
the fact that they had no knowledge of the ex-
istence of places concerning the openness OF
which the Grand Jury had been able to secure
adequate evidence.
we do charge and present that in their rela-
lions TO these places the officials of the police,
from the roundsmen up to the Commissioners.
guilty Of criminal Ignorance and of criminal
negligence.
II is our Judgment that the existing law and
the rules of the Police Department are adequate
for the suppression of all places in which the
law is being broken. The inference is unavoid-
able that the neglect and the blindness are cue
not to lack of intelligence or knowledge, but to
some direct interest in the maintenance OF the
places.
District Attorney that there sufficient testi-
mopy before them to warrant such action, found
indictment against the captain of one pre-
cinct. They of the opinion that the supe-
riors OF this captain were responsible to an
equal or greater extent for criminal negligence
similar TO that which had been proved against
him
The Grand Jury were, however, advised by the
District Attorney that the evidence brought be-
fore them in regard to the responsibility OF these
higher police officials did not in his opinion con-
stitute sufficient grounds for Indictment.
Notwithstanding that the District Attorney
declared In his letter of March 10 that the in
yestigation of the Police Department be-
gun his initiative, and that the end he had in
view was a thorough investigation of the Police
Department" yet in his answers to questions of
the Grand Jury directed to him he stated that
he had no complaint to make or evidence to
produce against any of the higher officials for
neglect to enforce the law, and that he had no
knowledge of any such fact"
For these reasons. and for the reasons herein
before stated relative the responsibility of the
District Attorney for effective prosecution of
dictments the Grand Jury considered 1t mad
visa BILE to order indictments against the inspec
tor whose district was In question or against the
Chief of Police.
DEvERY'S RECORDS DISTRUSTED.
The Grand Jury examined Chief Devery's Off
cial records. and have strong suspicious that
they are bogus. the following extract proves:
The Jury took occasion to examine the records
kept in the office of the Chief of Police, and
known the Chiefs book of suspicious places.
on the date which the entries have been
completed, March Is, the total number of places
throughout the territory of Greater New York
classed suspicious was found to be 227.
In connection with the other evidence that has
been placed before them, the Jury could not but
arrive at the conclusion that this record OF sus-
pcious places for the entire city very in
complete and inadequate They had themselves
had occasion to consider IN the course Of their
term a larger number of cases from gambling
houses (the reports before this being restricted
TO two three districts), than were reported in
the Chiefs book for the whole city Of Greater
New-York.
They find themselves in doubt also concern
ing the authenticity of the record book itself
The entries there date from May 1S 1898, to
March 19, 1900 but from the freshness Of the
book and the uniformity in the general appear
Of the writing, it seemed possible to the
jurors that all the entries had been recently
made
The presentment makes the following sugges-
ton for the more speedy suppression of disor-
derby places:
The Jury is of opinion that the present prac-
lice or bringing indictments only against the
actual manager of houses found to be under
one heading or another. disorderly, is inadequate
and ineffective The nominal responsibility for
the management of such places easily be
transferred. and, as matter of fact, is trans
ferred from one lessee to another the actual
ownership remaining unchanged
The Jury of opinion that il the law can
be enforced so that in addition to the finding
OF an Indictment against the manager in charge
similar indictment could be found against the
owners of a building when such owners could
be determined, or in the absence of such identi-
fication against John Roe" as the owner of the
building. In such manner as to constitute for
fixture of license for the premises which have
been shown to be disorderly, a more satisfactory
result could be secured in bringing the nuisance
permanently to a close.
RAPs SOME NEWSPAPERS
The presentment also mildly raps certain
newspapers for publishing misleading reports
of what occurred in the Grand Jury room in
several instances. and seems to feel somewhat
hurt because reporters who had written ac-
counts of protected" gambling and poolrooms
were not willing forward and reveal
the source of their confidential information re-
CARELESS Of the fact that such a would