New-York tribune., 1902-01-13
PHlLBIN SUPPORTS GOFF.
HE SAYS JUSTICE GAYNOR COULD NOT
HAVE HAD ALL THE FACTS BEFORE
HIM IN THE GLENNON CASE.

Ex-District Attorney Philbin last night gave
Tribune reporter his views on Justice Gay
nor's decision in the case Of Wardman Glennon.
While expressing the greatest respect for Justice
Gaynor, Mr.. Philbin took exception to every i'm
portant point in his decision, and very freely
expressed his own opinion on the subject, re-
affirming his conviction of Glennons guilt. He
said:
While 1 believe Judge Gaynor to be one of the
ablest and strongest criminal judges now slttlng
on the bench, / satisfied that his criticism
of Recorder Goff's action is due to FAILURE
properly to present all the facts in the case 70
Judge Gaynor. There can be little QouDt
that had Judge Gaynor presided at the trial OF
Glennon he would have been forced TO follow Ihe
same course did Recorder Goff rms is quIte
clear to my mind by reason of Judge Gaynor's s
reference to the fact that the Recorder simply
quoted the statute when the jury applied lor
additional instruction.
The point was as to whether Gennon had
properly performed his duty in seeking 10 uls-
cover violations of the law AS all the IL IaG.s the
had already been submitted to the jury IN Lne
testimony of the witnesses, there was absoiuteiy
nothing for the Recorder to do but read the
statute, which clearly defines the duty OF the
police official. The law does not pause with the
mere placing of passive duty of enforcing the
law on the policeman; it places an afirnative tie
duty of detecting crime upon him. A deleCtlNe
is only a higher grade of policeman whose duty
Of detecting crime is specialized
Now, there no dispute at the time OF the
trial as whether there existed a violation OF
the law at the time Glennon was indicted 1hls
was admitted by both sides. The whole ques-
ton was Did Glennon neglect his duty IN tall-
ing to discover this violation of the law? Inc
jury considered this question and decided that
he had. 1t simply a question Of facts
Judge Gaynor says that no officer has the
right to enter a house to look for a violation
OF the law. This is true; but only to certain
extent. Personally, l still believe that an ofl-
Ger has sufficient justification to enter mouse
where he believes there is a violation OF the law
There is authority to sustain this view. Ihe
mere fact that houses of prostitution had eX-
listed and had been tolerated does not alter the
aspect that police officials were bound to sup
press them.
felt during my administration that a case
might be made out against almost any captain
in the Police Department for failing TO disturb
houses of i'll repute. 1 refrained from seeking
evidence to justify such step except in cases
ally profiting in such traffic. 1t was evident to
me that nothing would be more detrimental TO
the community than to enforce the law in such
a manner as to drive women leading evil lives
into respectable neighborhoods. That course
was a source of great complaint under the
Strong administration, when the performance
of their duty by the police resulted in driving
women of low character into the 1athouses and
tenement houses.
There was no question in my mind but that
Glennon was more than neglectful of his duty.
Therefore l instituted proceedings against him.
Glennon was a skilled detective of many years
experience There was far less allowance to be
made for him than for ordinary policeman.
l am satisfied.