New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1902-11-29

| suffice. Let it be supposed that during a cap
tains absence promotions have been made: an
! other captain has been assigned to his former
company, and arrangements made to transfer
the absent to new company or to detail
him as acting chief of battalion or otherwise
upon his return. Is it TO be assumed that, on
returning abruptly. he can take charge or his
former company forcibly, dlsplRce its com
mander and refuse TO accept his new assignment
or detail? Manifestly not. still stronger would
be the case of a battalion CHER. But further
application is needless. The position of the
defence in this regard is untenabie.
The precedent of custom is finally sought for
support Of this action, and where objection
existed the part OF the Commissioner some
force is conceded to the Argument But no
precedent was cited, and none Is known Where
such action taken in opposition TO the ex-
pressed directions and orders of that official.
| The finding is guilty
Before the order and memorandum were given
to the press, copies were sent to the Mayor
office The Mayor had been asked about per
sistent reports that he would request the resls-
nation of Commissioner Sturgls if Chief Croker
were dismissed, and he had declined to talk
about them In official circles at the City Hall
late I'm the afternoon it was said that Com
| missioner Sturgis would retire from ONCE on ms
own motion before the end of the year, and that
the Mayor knew of his intention 1t was sa1o'
too. that ex-Fire Commissioner Sheffield could
have the office when Commissioner Sturgis va
Gated it. and probably would take it. After
issued Mayor Low made the following state
ment. the closing paragraph of which was re-
garded at the City Hall as particularly s1gmh-
cant:
The charter places upon the Fire Commits
sioner and not upon the Mayor, the duty OF con-
Quoting all trials in the Fire Department, ana
II is the sworn duty of the commissioner 10
make his findings upon the evidence according
to his conscience. 1t is due to the provisions OF
the charter itself that the Commissioner has
hpa formulate
10 try them. The circumstances or TINS case
| have been such that have thought 1t monument
upon the Mayor to assure himself that the chlef
has had fair trial, and that every opportunity
given to him to make his defence IN the
fullest possible way. BENG sat!snt t as gu
upon these points. there seemed to be no reason
why this trial should not take Its course IKE
any other trial held 10y the Commissioner Inc
discipline of the department, IN 1act' re0uIIeu
that this matter should he disposed OF In the
No one can read the findings of the Commits
sioner with an open mind without approaching
both that he has tried to bring a candid judg-
ment TO his task and also that some OF tne
charges upon which he finds the chief guilty are
of very serious moment. They raise questions
that ought to he passed upon, II need be, by Inc
Court of Appeals. He would be bold man VINO
would say, after studying the evidence, that the
Commissioner is without Justification for mis-
findings.
The findings of the Commissioner suggest some
questions W far reaching Importance.
First-Whether the department should have
chief with such powers as to promotion trans
fer and in some other respects to make him
really more powerful than the Commissioner.
1t has not always been II is very certain
that the department can never be smoothly and
efficiently carried under existing conditions
unless the Commissioner and the chief are IN
harmony; and If the Commissioner must give
way to the chief as the lower court has said he
must do in the matter of resuming active COM
mand chief. contrary to the direction of the
Commissioner, IL is not fair 10 hold either the
Commissioner the Mayor responsible for the
department / inclined to propose 70 the
legislature that the office of chief whatever its
SbO no AZ bV he
sioner for the time being from among the
deputy chiefs precisely as the Secretary OF the
Navy for the time being appoint any
admiral at will to the charge OF any bureau I'm
his department. 1t IL interesting to point out
that in the navy there has never been friction
between the Secretary and the bureau officials
because every Secretary has been able TO secure
right hand man thoroughly loyal TO himself
In the army. on the contrary. there is frequently
friction between the Secretary Of War and the
commander in chief OF the army. because the
latter is a permanent officer, not always In sym
patty with the Secretary OF War for the time
being Yet 1t cannot he said that this difference
of organization has made the navy less efficient
than the army.
Second-It raises the question whether some
provision for the trial of a chief ought not to
be made which does not involve the necessity OF
men being tried by Il commissioner who has
himself formulated the charges This question.
committee III connection with the Police De-
partment. and ] hope that some light may be
thrown upon the problem soon.
II now remains for the Mayor to look closely
into the condition Of affairs in the Fire Depart
nent. for the purpose Of determining whether
or not any further action ought TO he taken In
the public interest