Omaha daily bee., 1903-01-22
BROATCH BRAND OF POLICE
Records of Men Raappointed to the Force
BY New Board.
MOST OF THEM HAVE MANY BAD MARKS
During Their Former Service They
Were Found Guilty of Drunken
ness, Conduc UnbecOminE on
GERS and other Onenses.

Among the fifteen men selected by the
Board of Fire and Police Commissioners at
its meeting of Monday night for appoint
ment to the police force are eight who have
already served in the department at some
previous time, although there we're not in
the number any of the sixteen men dropped
from the pay roll by this board about three
months ago for the ostensible reason Of in
sufficient funds.
OF the men who have served in the de-
partment before, the records Of the clerks
office show that but one Of them resigned
and the others were discharged, though in
three cases the record does not indicate
that the discharge was attended with any
discredit to the officer. Three OF the re-
appointed men at least were dismissed un-
der conditions which would naturally be
supposed to be a bar to reinstatement.
The member of this group whose record
most particularly challenges attention is
AL T. Sigwart, who has served in almost
every position in the department from pa
trolman to chief and part way back again,
and whose desire to be a policeman was so
strong that when there was nothing do
ing" in his line in the regular department,
he served as a special officer.
Al SiRwart's Record.
AS shown by the record, Al Sigwart was
appointed patrolman July %, 1887, promoted
to fourth sergeant February 6, 1888; to third
sergeant October 10 of the same year, to
second sergeant April % and to first SER
geant September q. 1889. He was removed
July 3, 1895, but reappointed captain August
10 Of the same year and October Z following
was made chief of police. His resignation
was accepted August 8, 1897, to take effect
September 1 and he was granted twenty
days leave, with pay to date from August
10, which just carried him to the close Of
his term Of service. There Is no hiatus
here, for he was on August 80 appointed
special officer, with the pay of captain, COM
mencing September l and continuing until
further orders of the board. His name was
dropped from the rolls September 26, 1898,
and by order of court was reinstated jan
uary q. The record closes with a notation
of his resignation February 20, 1899, to take
effect January 20 of that year. The maxi
mum age limit for appointment to the po-
flee department as fixed by the rules Of the
board is 40 years, and in the application
from Sigwart recently filed it is shown that
he is As years Of age.
AS to L. f. Dryers former service in
the police department the record shows
that he was appointed patrolman June go,
1899. Charges of 'intoxication and making
arrests without Just cause" are noted
against him July 16, 1900, which charges
were found to be true and he was suspended
for thirty days, dating from July 20. TheE
on September IA, 1901, he pleaded guilty to
charges Of neglect OF duty and was fined
four days pay. Again March 10, 1902, he
was under investigation on charges that
he had been asleep while on duty and in
toxicated. He was found guilty and dis
missed from the service March 10. 1902.
Over the Age Limit.
Josiah Thomas, the record says, was ap-
pointed %patrolman JUNE 25, 1894, and dis
charged for lack of funds September 20,
1897. He was reinstated March S, 1898, to
date from March /. Charges were fled
against him May 2L, 1900, to the effect
that he had been asleep while on duty and
on May % those charges were sustained
and he was dismissed. Thomas present
application shows his age to be 46 years
and for that reason and others Health
Commissioner Ralph, who made the physl-
cal examination, has declined to recon-
mend him.
There are but two entries in the record
Of John H. Cusick. The first states that
he was appointed p~atrolman August IL,
1895, and the other that he was removed,
dismissed" September II, 1895. Cuslck re-
ported at the Office Of the clerk Of the board
Tuesday to complete the requirements at
tendant upon his appointment, and at that
time was so apparently intoxicated that he
was told to come back at another time. He
went to the office Of Health Commissioner
Ralph also and DR.. Ralph refused to ex-
anime him because Of his condition.
49,. !" 800 =
was appointed patrolman June 20, 1894, and
removed from the department July 8, 1895.
He was reappointed September II, 1895. On
July 20, 1896, charges of unbecomlng con-
duct were preferred against him, but were
declared not sustained. But on November
1, 1897, he was charged with conduct unbe-
coming an officer in having been present
at a dance hall and saloon at $50 a. m.
Sunday, where liquors we're sold in viola
tion of law and not reporting the same;"
and the charges were sustained and he was
suspended thirty days without pay. Again
on January 4, 1899, charges Of unbecoming
conduct were filed against him and he was
found guilty January 8 and suspended for
thirty days without pay. He was dismissed
from the department for lack of funds Feb
ruary 2s, 1899.
Charged with Neglect of Duty.
BY the record Fred C. Moore is shown
to have been appointed patrolman April IA,
1898, on ninety days probation, and on Au-
gust 5 this probationary period was ex-
tended sixty days longer. Charges of meg
lect OF duty. leaving beat, etc. are noted
September 8, 1898, but the oficer was &C
quilted September ~, 1898. Neglect Of
duty, however, brought about Moore's I'm
ish. for he was dismissed October 3, 1898,
on such charges filed September 20.
Peter II Dillon, as the record states, was
appointed patrolman October IA, 1889. An
accusation that he had sat Town while on
duty" filed September %, was dismissed.
He was accused January 2, 1895, Of having
been asleep while on duty and was ordered
reprimanded. He was discharged from the
department February rs, 1899, for lack of
funds. In his new application Dillon's age
is given as 46 years.
The recorded history of NJ. F. Hotchkiss'
former connection with the police depart
ment shows that he was appointed patrol
man April 30. 1894. He was reported jan