Akron daily Democrat. [volume] (Akron, Ohio) 1892-1902, 1902-12-06
SAYS CHIEF
HAD CHARGE

Prlsonkeeper John T.. Washer when
interviewed by a reporter, made the
following statement:
my attorneys and myself came to
the conclusion that it would be i'm
possible for me to get fair hearing
before the Board of City Commission
ors and that they had already
prejudged the matter, and had arrived
at the determination of removing me
from office. The proceedings this
morning In the hearing substnntiated
our Views in every particular Every
objection of the counsel for the pro-
secution was sustained and the Com
missioners as body refused to have
the record show what actually did take
place. The unfairness of the Commits.
sioners In their rulings was sufficient
to convince every disnterested spec
tator present that no matter what evil
dence might be introduced on behalf
of myself 1t would not affect their
ultimate determination to remove me.
| The evidence of the one witness in.
| troduced by Chief Durkln showed that
he had previously been before the
Board OF City Commissioners and In
their office at the City building and
related to them all the evidence that
he had in his possession. This pro.
cecding of the Board who were TO
act as the trial court was so ont
rageOus In its nature that the Board
of CITY Commissioners by unanimous
vote refused to allow my attorneys
to show this fact and even refused
to allow the stenographer's notes to
show that this state OF facts existed
although the fact that the Commits
slonors had talked not only with thIs
witness but with other witnesses for
the prosecution, Is not denied, and the
Stenographer was even ordered by the
commissioners to eXpunge this matter
from nor records, thus denying to me
any right to have the full evidence
reviewed / think that the public ia
entitled to full Investigation of all
matters pertaining TO this unfortunate
aiIair, and ! should only too gladly
| welcome such an investigation.
II the same can be held before an i'm.
portial court and all the evidence con.
hected herewith gone into. | know
That there was absolutely no nepIoct
on my part and that the evidence will
bear me out Chief Durkln. or rather
those behind him, singled me out and
preferred changes against me instea d
of asking for thorough Investigation
OF all parties and matters concerned
Thus an injunction was nv ouly
remedy"
"The facts show that Mr.. MoraIand
the Injured party, was placed unde,
arrest by officer Raleigh and brough
70 the City prison in the patrol waror
between 10 and II p. m. on NIonda,
night and the charge of lntoxication en-
tered up against him in the prison rec
ords at that time by the patrol officers
NJ which time l had already retired
No notice was given me by the officer
OF by anyone else that night OF thi
mans arrest confinement or condition
ahd heard or knew nothing of the fac
that he had been placed In the prlsol
until saw him at @ n, m. Tuesda,
morning at which time | entered III
prison and saw the prisoners, nine il
number lying about in different pc
sltions ! noticed nothing unusual Il
reference to any of them. This ma,
Moraland was lying upon the floor. Thl
did not appear strange TO me, as It /
common occurrence TO find prisoner
drunk or under the influence Of drug
in similar position, Later my after
hon was called to him and l attempt
ed to awaken him by sprinklIng waite
upon his face. inquired OF him wha
his name was, where he lived an
where he worked, to which got no re
sponse' ! then asked him If he W,
In the habit Of taking morphine as h