Chicago eagle. [volume] (Chicago, Ill.) 1889-19??, 1902-05-10
Citizens from Many Parts Of Town Write
Of Men and Events Of the
Day.
Pointed Questions Asked Regarding the Trans
actions Of Public Bodies and Of
Political Leaders
Gossip Of the City and Of the Country
Forms the Subject Of Com.
munications.

TO the Editor Chicago Eagle.
Dear Sir--As 1t has been found pos
siblc TO eliminate the stock yards
stencil. why can we not devise some
means for abOlishing the smoke nuis-
ancc. which Is just rs disgusting and
us injurious to health as the odors
from the packing houses ana the rem
dcrlng plants?
1t seems. however. that under the
present administration the city of Chi
cago itself Is the greatest offender In
this regard. so ] suppose II Is useless
to hope for u remedy under existing
conditions. Besides, the Health De-
partmcnt. Il seems. has practically
abolished the smoke inspectors dc.
pnrtmcnt. Everything that makes for
the health or comfort of the people
the Harrison administration Is opposed
to. But would not clean streets and
clear air bc u good campaign cry for
the opposition party? With this for
an issue l believe Harrison could bc
driven out of office, which would be
one step In the direction of abOllshing
smoke as well us dirty streets ana
stencil In this city. HYGIENE.
Editor Chicago Eagle.
Sir-'rhe daily newspapers have been
clamOrlng for weeks for the Democrats
to commit themselves In their platform
on the question OF the disposal of the
interest on the public funds by the
County Treasurer. Now, l notice they
have not made any such demand upon
the Republicans. Why? What Is
sauce for the Democratic goose should
be sauce also for the Republican gan
der. hut your daily contemporaries do
not appear to think 40. Yours, etc.
FAIR PLAY.
Chicago. May 7ih.
To the Editor.
Dear Slr-SOme time ago the news
papers We're full of heated cOntrO-
versy over the annual report of the
Board of Education. Trustee Gala
CHER threw out several insinuatiOns to
the effect that the report suppressed
important information to which the
public was entitled, and said he was
going to make public the result Of
1 some inquiries he had been making
regarding the matter. Now, as a
citizen, l was greatly interested
In that controversy, but 1t sud
denly collapsed like II balloon antl
| nnthinv hnu siu,n haon h.ovJ ~ a.
What has come of Trustee Gallagher's
charges, anyway? IL the public to re-
gard these serious clashes. accOmpa.
MED by still more serious lnsinuatiOns,
as merely so much hot air or bun
cOmbe! Perhaps Mr.. Gallagher. whom
know Is one OF your readers. may
be able to enllghten several Interested
parties on these points.
WEST sIDER.
~
To the Editor:
AS yOu take an interest In the af
fairs Of the Police ana Fire Depart
ments, perhaps you have noticed tho
recent order Of the Chief OF POlic,
prohibiting every patrOlman from going
to II race track and wagering his owl
money on a race when of duty, alst
the prohibition by the same official OF
his subOrdinates taking part in any
games of chance whatever. 1t may no
he generally known, but am Informed
1t Is Il fact that this prohibition OK
tends even to simple games Of euchr'
for very small wagers. ! do not be
licve the Chief has the right under thu
constitution to pass OF attempt to en-
force any such rule as this, and i
would be interesting to know what thu
Civil Service Commission thinks abou
the matter. EX-PArROLMAN.
Chicago, May ).
Sil'-My attention has been dlrecte,
to Il paragraph in your last edition II
reference to City Clerk LOeffler and hi
attitude regarding the police pension
fund.- which he says Is bound to b'
wiped out in time. rOw l would llk,
to say in this connection that there ar,
but two steps necessary to be taken t.
render any such deplOrable event a
this impossible. In the first place, al
pensions should be made unifOrm tha'
is to say, all pensioners in good stand
ing and possessing the necessary
claims and qualifications should b'
paid $50 a month, and nobody one dol
lar over that. Because a man has helt
high office in the department and ha'
drawn high salary as the incumben
thereof should form no reason why III
should draw twice as large pension