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

shows that there were, indeed, several sepaI sue
fires but that all came from the armorY. Cne
raseed down the elevator shaft from openings
above the roof Ia fues. and III well OIL sHalt a,I
found ready fuel in the WOODEN lIiIliiI X az - -
cont Others came directly through the WIN
dows OF the bedrooms. Many windows were
opened by guests some to gaze out, some IN OF
broken by the blows of the burning wood driven
nv the " ind and fires kindled in such IooiiS os
said burning wood fragments. OlIe5 s =; pu az
from the accumulation OF burning uranus ~ e-S
window recesses outside the glass. All OF tnSSe
were contingencies which were not Only possioie
but probable.
BPAvE, But NOT ABLE TO CoMMA1>D'
No one will question the defendants personal 1a
bravery But this quality IL not IN ISSUE. ~
o1,alfty vitality necessary in his position Is the
ability TO foresee, 10 guard 10 anIclpdtS5, - -
meet emergencies-in word. TO coflnlSuu, -
-on+-oi the situation The defendant had under
his orders on the spot at this time some Two
hundred and fifty men. among thenl i i9I 10
DeriAnced chiefs and captains. but ne olu 'iIols
trori- and not his own When the fire had
gained possession of the upper part OF tne Jill
Ing. he fought his way CALAMITY with his men
,s,,ba ton floor hut he passed by the lfeless
bodies of score of persons who naa peer. Nv , ts
half an hour before, and would nave sun peeit
li,ing IL he had possessed the qualities OF gen
aralsbin and a true conception of the WORK OF d
comma nding officer. Nothing approaching an
adequate justification for failure 70 taHo orri,1
cautionary measures is presented: me on -
SION IS unavoidable that he entirely talieo ~
comprehend the situation, and the result Was Al
the highest degree disastrous. Guilty.. =.
The third charge is that of the sending OF Iaise
,.,,oTts 70 the commissioner in connection with
he VVicke IRE. the allegation being that the DE-
PENDANT falsely reported the scarcity OF water
NOT GUILTY OF FALSE REPORTS.
TIL. Guidance does not sustain this charge,
though Il is true that the report makes state
u1ent more sweeping than the facts Justliy:
There undoubtedly marked ScaIoitS %
water within the radius named by hlih co t
pared with the extent of the fire. and III MS
anxiety to preserve the reputation of his men
the exaggerated statement should not DE re-
I'd al classification, Not guilty,
Next in order is the charge "a relating TO the
or passes for himself or friends upon OF OVER
various railroad and steamship lines
The official letter books of the Bureau OF Chiel
Of Department were in evidence, IN when,
among many Others upon department business,
all signed Edward F. Croker. Chief of Depart
ment, appeared numerous letters addressed 10
one or other of the transportation companies
above cited These letters either asked lor
passes or acknowledged receipt of "transporta-
tom (passes). courtesieS or faVors. OF oI what
had been previously asked for. They were IN
0exed in regular order. the subject being stated
IA he 'transnortation' The evidence given by
,,cb -e-TaSertati,-es of the companies as APP
peared was scanty. Inability to remember and
alleged inaccessibility OF destruction Of their
thought he had been applied to by the defend
ant, and had sent TO the department list or the
would not identify the list. Another had grant
ed the defendant what another company had
granted but would not swear positively what 1t
was He stated his belief that it was free trans
portatiOn.
WOULD NOT ANSWER QUESTIONS.
The defendant was asked many questions.
first 10 establish the fact that the letter book
copies were genuine copies of letters dictated
and signed by him, and second, the direct ques-
lions lin the case of each company in sub
stance, did he ask for, receive accept or use
free transportation by such a line, or id he
travel or did his friends travel by such a line
about the time OF the correspondence
shown by the letter books To ali questions thus
asked in connection to this charge the defend
ant REPLIED. Il refuse 10 answer by ADVICE or
counsel" He then asked if he refused be-
cause it would incriminate or degrade him. TO
which the same answer given.
The validity Of the correspondence was not
denied or impeached by the witness best able to
do g.. and most vitality affected. The circum-
stantlal evidence is so convincing that it is i'm
possible to avoid the conclusion that the de-
fendant is guilty as charged. But. inasmuch
as the defendant positively refused 10 either af
firm or deny, and even refused TO answer the
question as TO his reason for so refusing. under
The constitutional provision 1.-THE Commissioner
being without the power possessed by a court
of enforcing an answer), the Commissioner is
unable TO make finding on this charge.
PRIVATE USE OF PUBLIC PROPERTY.
The fifth charge deals with the conversion of
under two headings-the use Of such property
by the defendant and the transfer of such prop
erty by him TO other persons for their use
Under the first, it is shown that the defendant
caused to be made for his use an excessive
amount Of harness, some of 1t suited for fast
pleasure driving and unusual and unsHited
10 department use; that such harness was deco
Gated with his initials or private monogTams,
on the other hand IL is asserted without con-
traoiction. that public duty was occasionally
performed by him when using such harness.
The opinion of the Commissioner is that the
evidence shows an extravagant use of public
property, viz. the labor and material paid for
by the city, bur not conversion TO private
in the meaning Of the charge.
Under the other heading, it is shown that the
defendant caused TO he delivered 10 private per
sons, or firms or companies certain amounts of
department fire hose, with its couplings. which
a.
nently alienated.
Two defences were presented-first that the
deliveries were made by order of the ex-Com-
missioner; second. that II was proper DISPOSE
ton Of such department property. because the
persons, places or property or the public fire.
qUenting such places needed the protection. No
evidence other than the defendants statement
was shown 10 the alleged order of the
Commissioner. while the correspondence of the
Gates that The actions were taken on his own
authority. This point has hitherto been re
Gently ruled on by the Commissioner and il was
held that the order Of superior does not
Justify the committing. by a subordinate. Of
act which he knows to be illegal.
CHIEFS TESTIMONY IN THE CASE.
Confrmatory evidence of his responsibility is
given by the Defendants testimony as 10 the
propriety Of such gifts. in which he defines his
views of public versus private use. He stated.
in substance that he should consider IL q proper
public 10 place hose in a building like the
Fifth Avenue Hotel, or the Cathedral or Fifth
Avenue, or in John Wanamakers store. This
view is, of course, untenable. the statute pro-
Vides specifically that owners of such buildings
shall provide their own apparatus and the de-
PENDANT, through his bureau, Is daily aiding in
the enforcement of the law The construction
Of his powers held by him would permit uulim-
tied discrimination and favoritism. he deter
mining who should furnish their own apparatus
and who should be supplied at the expense of
the city, and this, in fact is what has been
done. II was further testified that the hose
WE below the department standard in quality
ana lad been condemned. This IS met bv tn.