New-York tribune., 1902-11-29

LnaISe s. SeTlLIlg
is made upon the Charge 4: Violation of the
constitution of the State of New-YOrk He is
found guilty Of the Charge D: Conversion OF pub
lie property to private use; and of the Charge b:
Conduct prejudicial TO good order and discipline
in prosecuting and Unjustly discriminating
against certain members Of the uniformed forces
and of the Charge Z: Conduct unbecOming
officer gentleman and prejudicial to good
order and discipline which charges were pre-
ferred against him under date of September %.
1902, by the secretary OF the department. and
he is hereby dismissed the service of the de-
partment. to take effect from O'Clock a. ms
December 1. 1902 By order Of
THOS. STURGIS, Commissioner.
". NJ LEARY. Secretary
REASONS FOR THE ACTION.
Accompanying the order was the following
memorandum. giving the reasons of the Com
missioner and his findings upon the trial of ths
charges against Chief Croker:
The first charge alleges a failure to safeguard
the Park Avenue Hotel
The statutes. the Building Code "a part of the
statutes) and the department rules and regula-
tions clearly define the measures that shall be
taken to safeguard such buildings, which meas
ures include standpipes. hose. etc. in buildings
over 100 feet. of nine stories (the Park Ave-
nue. Hotel was 124 feet in height. and also
quire serni-annual inspections These measures
were not taken. were the inspections made.
In the two and a half years during which the
defendant exercised the powers Of Chief OF de-
partrnent before the fire. no effort was made hy
him TO enforce the necessary preCa Utions. 1t
his duty TO enforce them. Why was IL not
done? On October 2. 1899. he issued an order
suspending all inspections except where he
should specifically order. He never thereafter
ordered an inspection OF this building. Why not2
The defence first aIIege that il was fireproOf
The statute makes no such exemptions But
it fireproof? Certainly not. What does
the defendant think? He testified under oath
before the coroners jury in March that he did
| not consider II fireprocf, and gave as his rsa-
sons tie iarge amount OF wood employed IN it's
construction. He therefore knows its construc-
tion, and his present contradiction cannot be
accepted
ex-Commissioner. Scannell; but the effort TO
/ shift the responsibility not sustained The
/ ex-Commissioner not called a witness by
/ the defendant. and no excuse was given for the
omission to do The prepondeTanCe of evil
| dence showed that the meeting AZ which such
order alleged to have been given took place
| in the autumn of 1900 year after the order
of the defendant was issued Further. that moth
ing approaching such an order was given at
said meeting. but that the talk referred q
change of form in violation notices. requested
by the Corporation Counsel to enable him the
better to prosecute his cases. Further. the de-
fendant stated that he personally composed the
order OF 1890 himself. Lists of other inspections
We're placed in evidence, but they included
first class hotels.
FAILED TO SAFEGUARD HOTEL.
1t is unnecessary to seek the motive for these
exemptions. The fatal result in the case of tbs
Park Avenue Hotel is known. and il cannot be-
doubted. from the evidence. that If well known
requirements had been complied with no suci
calamity would have occurred. The existencs
of a standpipe and lines of hose in the hotel
would have saved many lives. and perhaps all
OF those that were lost. No sufficient valid
reason is given in this for the violation OF
law, rule and regulation The finding is guilty.
The second charge alleges fncOmpetencv at
great fires Three Illustrations given.
The Wicke fire. at Thirty-first-st and First-
ave. One feature OF the charge centres around
the abandonment of certain buildings on Thirty
second-st. between First-ave and the Easc
River. and their consequent destruction and
spread Of fire from them. The deputy chief and
the battalion chief fighting the fire in those
buildings say they could have held their ground
The defendant their superior officer. decidet
that they could not, and ordered them out II
proper exercise of bis discretion The
lives Of many fremen were at stake; and their
lives were worth than the buildings It
he erred he erred on the right side
ONE ERROR OF JUDGMENT
The second illustration is the Tenth-st fire.
great building had been destroyed, One wall
remained standing unsupported. Its top had
fallen. It had been exposed for hours to fierce
fire, and the shock of falling roof which car
ried down all lateral supports. It had been
drenched with water to save II. Behind. thirty.
feet distant. stood a Standard Oil warehouse
filled with benzine and other infammable and
explosive oils. The defendant knew this and
had vainly sought TO remove the contents. HIS
thought the wall safe. and sent home part OF his
forces. The wall fell. crushed the oil building
released the contents, and a burning brand pro-
duced acres OF blazing oil Then he recalled his
men to control the spread of the fire thus
caused 1t Is conceded that his men, If present.
could not have prevented the fall OF the wall:
but. threatened with such a possibility. no COM
mander should have reduced his fighting force.
1t was serious error Of Judgment. but not such
a one as alone would sustain the charge.
The third illustration presents different condf-
tions An enormous confiagration in prog
ress in the list Regiment ArTnory. For an hour
a continuous storm of burning wood was blown
by a wind of forty-fve miles an hour against
the Park Avenue Hotel. two hundred feet dis
tant. This hotel held six hundred persons. Its
framework was stone. brick and iron, but its
windows had exposed pine wood frames and
mouldings and within had wooden shutters.
Inside the windows were also lace curtains.
and throughout the building wooden finishings
to all rooms. wooden doors. wood and plaster
partitions. wooden floors. except the entrance
floor, and an elevator shaft partly lined with
wood soaked with oil. The upper part OF the
staircase OF wood: the roof was p
mansard structure and a buIkhead. both lined
with wood.
CAUSE OF HOTEL FIRE.
The defendant states that the only precaution
he took to order fireman TO see if the