New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1902-09-12
THE CASE OF CHIEF GROCER.

The only criticism that can fairly be passed
1non Fire Commissioner Sturgiss statement OF
his reasons for detaching Chief Croker from
command OF the department is its tardy appear
ence When so extraordinary a step as this
was taken the people Of the city were entitled
to an explanation. and with such an explana-
ton as is now given they would have been
satisfied. Instead Of making the perfectly sim
ME statement that Mr.. Croker had been insub-
ordinate and without consulting the Commits
sioner had issued orders revoking the Commits
sioner's orders, Mr.. Sturgis waived away all in
ouiry with an air of superiority 10 public judg-
ment which Immediately provoked criticism.
People who believed Mr.. Croker to be an eff
Gent chief were naturally led to sympathize
with him when he was subjected to strange and
possibly illegal discipline for no apparent rea-
son, and the advice of the Corporation Coun-
sci. which Mr.. Sturgis says he followed in keep
inc silent was OF doubtful wisdom.
Now, il is seen that the reason which was
NOT apparent was nevertheless substantial 1t
was sufficient to Justify suspension on charges.
and those charges are being prepared Indeed.
we are not sure that the better course would
not have been to suspend Chief Croker at once
pending trial on charges, instead of resortins to
the relief from duty which has provoked
legal contest and resulted in decision now on
enneal that the Commissioner exceeded his
mowers The impression that an improper pro-
cadrIre was taken against Mr.. Croker tends to
ALLEVIATE popular sympathy and convey the i'm
nression that nothing was done by the CHIEF
making him legally subject TO discipline. Some
NAV say even now that the preferring Of
charges is an afterthought. since the legality
of relief is questioned. However that may be-
there is no doubt that the good of the service
required Mr. Sturgis to take action Of some
kind
II is vet an open question whether or not he
mistook his remedy and that point will not be
decided until the higher courts pass upon his
right to relieve member Of the department
from duty. Something. however. he was re-
ouired to do 10 bring his subordinate into sub
lection. for it intolerable that this man
should calmly walk into the Office while de-
tached on vacation and begin TO issue orders
overriding his superior. Imagine the COM
n,ander at Governors Island being detached on
a months leave and another officer detailed by
the War Department to take command. Think
what would happen if he then suddenly took If
into his head for any reason, good or bad. TO
abandon his vacation. return to headquarters
and tell the officer commanding there by orders
from the War Department 10 go about his busi-
nessi He would be court martialled just as
soon as the necessary orders could be issued.
It was not merely case in the Fire Depart
rnent of the chief being absent and a substi-
tute doing his work till he came back. The
deputy had been designated formally as acting
chief. Mr. Croker's return TO town pleasure
or business did not restore him to power He
had obtained leave Of absence and Invested
himself of his functions. His mere bodily pres
ence in his office did not restore them TO him.
It was for the Commissioner TO rescind the
order placing another In command when the
time came for him TO resume active duty. but
he presumed without consulting the Commits
sioner. TO issue an order himself setting aside
the Commissioners action. Then, when the
iInpropriety of this was pointed ont to
him he became insolent. Mr.. Sturgis rightly
believes that such INSTRUMENTATION could not
have been passed over without weakening his
authority in the department. and he has now
taken the right course in preparing to put the
chief on trial.