Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1903-07-20

df0Ifeu Lndt OUlctr LyicS sLruck Nj
Rowen twice and stepped back Of tn
crowd.
Mr.. Forrest Ohlert saw all four officer
use their sticks on the prisoner.
Several other witnesses testified TO ths
same effect. Some, however, saw but
three officers use their sticks, while
Others said they heard Officer Allen ap-
ply a vile epithet to Mr.. Rowen, and that
Officer Roberts told Officer Lyles to hit
R0wen.
At the close Of the testimony Mr..
johnson said he would submit the case
without argument
Mayor Simpson, in summoning up
the case said it divided itself into two
parts. Mr.. Rowen was guilty of inter-
ference with an officer in the discharge
of his duty, and the outrageous conduct
on the part of the officers was an Incl
dent in connection with that charge.
Since he had been elected Mayor he
never allowed any one TO interfere with
an officer in the discharge o. his duty,
while he was ever anxious to afford pro-
lection to citizens. Mr.. Rowen stood
convicted of the charge urged against
him and he would fine him $40. He
would also investigate the charges against
the officers next Monday morning.
The following is a summary of the
case as it appeared to the defense. The
Gazette, it will be remembered, publish
ed the officers version of the affair last
week.
The charge against Thomas Rowen was for
interfering with an officer in the discharge of
his duties under Corporation warrant and
he was fined ten dollars by the Mayor. There |
is no appeal from the Mayors decision. The |
Mayor, however, stated that he had separated |
this investigation into two parts that he |
would have to sustain his officers by filming |
Dir. Rowen ten dollars; that the evidence |
showed such an outrageous assault by three
policemen upon Mr.. Rowen that he would,
on next Monday, take up the case and dispose
Of il. This action Of the Mayors was upon his
own motion. In regard to the action OF the
Mayor TO investigate, the audience and the
counsel who represented the accused, and, in
fact, all persons who heard the testimony,
agreed with the Mayor that it was a most
brutal, cruel, outrageous assault by the police
Jflcers upon a citizen. In regard to the
Mayors action in filming ROwen, almost all Of
hose who heard the evidence and the counsel
Who represented Mr.. Rowen, agree that the
Mayors judgment was erroneous in the mat I,
er. In the first place the evidence showed
hat the officers were not discharging any
iuty toward preserving the peace and order
# the community as there was no disorder or
'reach of the peace being committed at the
line that Mr. Rowen with his friend passed
officer Allen and made the remark, namely,
We are going 10 elect you Mayor tomorrow, ;"
which caused Officer Allen to put his hands
N him. attempt to arrest him, and when Mr..
BOWEN pulled away, both Officers Allen and {
'mith used their clubs and in a few moments
we're assisted in it by Officer Roberts, certain
Y, and, a ,cording TO the evid snce Of seven
witnesses, by Officer Lyles as we'll. This
7as the whole provocation for their assault
pom Rowen. the remark that he made to
Dfiicer Allen rs he started TO enter q
he show. lt appears, however, that !
boat half an hour before this Officer !
Hen had undertaken to decide matter be- /,
yccn citizen and the show people. Mr.. !
owen overheard what passed between them y
nd said 10 the officer that he had no right 10 a
ecide the matter; that il there was any
onble it was his duty to make the arrest and Y
Ike them down TO be tried by the proper Of r
sial, and that the show people were right, I
nj he likewise made remark in the pres
Ice possibly Of one Of the officers or more Of .,
lem and others that there were three bum
)lcemen in the city Of Alexandria on duty
! the grounds that night, referring TO Allen,
Oberts and Smith. This remark made ~ .
owen half an hour before had evidently y
ached the ears Of these officers, because the
'idence showed that Officer Roberts in the -
eantime made a remark that Rowen was go y
To crix 10 nd |
arrest him. The law is that where an Of "
er, like policeman, who has the powers of r,
,onservator Of the peace, is discharging his r. r.
lty any person who by words or threats, or
cites another to a commission Of q breach Of
c peace, or by force, interferes with an of r,
er, is guilty of an OfienSe against the law. r.
ow Officer Allen was not discharging any u
Ity as conservator of the peace when y
oven made the remark which caused Allen I.
d Smith and the other officers to make this y
sault upon him and brutally and cruelty "
at him. Therefore ROwen could not have y
en- guilty Of any oiiense against the law. "
ne Mayor stated in his opinion that he ~
uld not allow his officers to be interfered =
tn in the discharge of their duties. No one u
jects TO this action on the part Of the Mayor -
all cases, and IL these officers, or any one d
them, had been discharging their duties :
d Rowen had either by threats, words,
lguage, or by fofcible action which tends -
create disturbance, disorder or q breach n
the peace, or interferred with them, or III
her Of them, he was liable to be arrested
/ such was not the case. Because person
likes a remark to q policeman, such as !
wen did, even if it was done in a sneering
inner, it was no reason for an officer to at :,
npt TO arrest him, or put his hands on him Y
itch is an assault, and to club him into
;ensibiiity,