Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1900-11-15
!. CLASH oF.CITY DEPARTMENTS.
City Council and Police Commission
odds THM.l.

John F. Welsh OF the f ire Department.,
has resulted in a clash between City
Council and the Police Department.
As heretofore repoi ted, Officer Serson
was given hearing in tho City Court
Monday week and Judge Cochran, after
hearing contradictory evidence, fined
the officer $25 and stated that. judging
from the evidence Of eye witnesses, be
believed the officer had exceeded his
authority, AMER hthes hearing City
Councilman George A. Willis saw
officer Serson outside Of the police
station and went ioaide and inquired
II Serson had paid his dne. Capt
Black, who was in command Mt the
time, asked Mr.. Willis what be wanted
to kno. for ard refused to give him
the information he sought. AS a matter
OF fact, Officer Ssrson's fine had not
been pad and in consequence some of
| the members Of Council are incensed
| Commission should not allow him to
remain on duty with the fine unpaid.
An officer of the Police Department,
| when asked why tho fine had not been
paid, could give no definite informa-
tim, but cited as a precedent for the
| delay the case OF former policeman,
who, he said, was fined last spring, but
| all of the money was never paid and
pcrtion OF the fine was recently re.
| mitted.
Thursday City Council resented the
refusal OF Capt. Black TO give Council
man Willis the information he sought
| by declining TO appropriate $3.50 on
account Of the contingent fund OF the
| Polire Department, which had been
asked for by the commissioners, until
| the commission should furnish Council
with AN itenized statement Of the
1 manner in which the money was to
be applied. The act governing the
| present Police Commission makes 1t
incumbent upon Council to grant such
appropriations annually, to the amount
| OF 1000, aud 1t Ia question whether
it is the duty of tho Police Commission
tn render m itenized statement, the
law ON the subject icing as follows:
The said Board of Police Commissioners
shall he allowed an annual cot tingent fund
| OF 81 900 to conduct detective secret service
or other work pertaining to the Police pe-
partment, when in their judgment 1t is
necessary.
| Another section of the act, upon
which the counoimen base their right
to know what becomes Of the money,
reads as follows:
All expenses of the Police Department,
including salaries, shall be paid by the
Council upon bills presented to 1t, fnnrked
with the approval of the Board of Police
| Commissioners, and properly audited by
the city auditor in the same manner as
other bills against the said city are now
passed.
The evidence of clash between the
departments manifested itself aE Thurs
days meeting of Council, when, after
Chairman Monaghan of the police COM
mittee had made a motion that the
Police Commission be allowed $3.50 on
account of lis contingent fund, Mr..
Smith inquired OF Mr.. Monaghan as to
how the money was to be applied. To
this Mr.. Monaghan replied that he
could give no information on the sub
ject. He knew nothing beyond the fact
that the commission had requested him
to have tho money appropriated.
Whereupon Mr.. Smith moved to amend
Mr.. .Monaghan's motion by requiring
the chairman OF the police committee
to REQUEST the Police Board 10 furnish
Council with an itemized statement as
to what the money was to be used for.
Mr.. Fisher thought this was rather
unusual proceeding and unnecessary
and opposed the amendment In reply
to Mr.. Usher, Mr.. Smith said he
wanted to know what the Police Board
was doing with the money app opriated
for contingent expenses. If the board
would send the bills 10 Council ap
proved he believed Council would pay
Them withoutany hestanoy. At present
there Is nothing to sh)w on the books
of the auditor or anywhere, SO far as
he knew, what becomes of the money.
He believed Council had right IL
know how the money was expended.
The public, he said, wants to know
what becomes OF the money. Mr.. Kane
seconded the amendment and it was
adopted by the following vote;
Ayes - Messrs. Willis, Monaghan,
Kane, Pierson, Johnston, Mousley,
Healey, Smith and Observation-Disclosures
b
Nays essrs. Fisher and Stewart--2.
Messrs. Cannon and Cberly were
absent.
After the amendment had been dis.
posed OF Mr.. Smith said be thought
the only way for Council 10 d. in the
matter would be not to allow the money
until an itemized account is received.
Mr.. Monaghan thought Council could
do nothing but pass the appropriation,
as the law required, and il an itemizeo
statement could be obtained afterward
all we'll and good. Mr.. Smith held
that Council reserved tho right, not.
withstanding tho law, TO know what
the money is expended for.
The amended motion was put to a
} vote aud lost, after which Mr.. Rant
} explained that the ,reas he voted
against it was because ne undsietoo6
that memLer of the body had asked
fer some information at the poiioe
station q few days ago and a captain
had practically given him to under.
stand that it was none OF his business.
} He thought the members of Council
had II right to such information at all
times. r
As the matter now stands, Council
! has not authorized any appropriation
and probably will not make the allow.
ance, of its own volition, unless the
Police Board sends 1t an item lied state
ment of what the money is to BIO used
for.
In speaking OF the contingent fund,
after the meeting of Council, an officer
Of the Police Department stated that
the chief use to which the money was
put was the paying of expenses Of
officers in going to other places on
police business.