Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1903-10-19
AGAINST DISMISSAL
OPINION OF CORPORATION COUN-
Sell ON GILLOTTs CASE.
Says the Commissioners Cannot Re.
move the Private From the Force
on Testimony Adduced.

Mr.. A. P. Duvall, the corporation counsel.
today rendered an opinion to the Commits
sioners in which he holds that Private Jo-
seph l.. elliott of the police force. recently
tried on charges of conouct unbecoming an
officer. cannot be dismissed from the force
on the strength of the findings of the trial
board. 1t will be remembered that the
board found the officer not guilty, but rec
commended his dismissal. The corporation
counsel holds that if elliott is guilty of
conduct tending to bring the Police Depart
ment into disesteem he will have to be
tried upon new specifications The elliott
case is the one involving the use of infiu-
ence in securing positions the regular
and the street-crossing police forces. It
was alleged that lie boosted of his influ-
ence and pull in mat direction
When the verdict of the trial board was
forwarded to the Commissioners with the
approval of Major Sylvester, superintendent
of police, Mr.. Wilton j. Lambert, attorney
for elliott. filed a brief in which he gave
reasons why the officer could not be dis
missed on the verdict as rendered He asked
that the matter be referred to the corpora
ton counsel. This action was taken by
the Commissioners, and the opinion rem
dered today Is in full as follows:
The Opinion in Full.
Il have the honor to return herewith the
of Private Joseph L. elliott of the police
force The trial committee reported in it's
finding: AS to the specification. we find the
accusy not guilty. AS to the charge We say:
While we find the accused not guilty Of the
specific charge preferred against him, we
are altogether satisfied from the testimony
that he Is not qualified for service on the
police force. He is shown by the testimony
to be reckless. extravagant and indiscreet
talker, much given to bragsadocio. and to
have indiscriminately boosted of his sup
posed power and influence, political and
otherwise, to an extent greatly calculated to
bring the police department into disesteem.
1.-The major and superintendent of police
in his review of the findings, continues the
corporation counsel, suggests that there is
nothing in the law or regulations to prevent
the imposition of such a penalty In this case
as the Commissioners may elect. although
the accused officer was found not to be
technically guilty of the specific charge, but
the investigation developed shortcomings in
other respects which would unfit him for
the police service, and thereupon the matter
was referred to me for an opinion whether
Private elliott can be removed upon the
testimony elected during the examination
not substantiating the specific accusation.
or whether there should be another trial on
the charge of conduct prejudicial to the
good order and discipline of the force.
THE act of Congress recognizing the
metropolitan police force, approved Febru-
airy -. lOl. PROVIDES. mat no REMOVAL
from the police force shall be made except
upon written charges and after an oppor-
tunity for defense on the part of the person
accused of such charges as may be made
Section IL of the police manual provides,
in detail for the trial of members Of the
force a trial committee is established. the
charge must be in writing. and all improper
questions shall be excluded and the testi-
mony confined to the issue to be tried, etc.
1.-The manifest object Of these provisions
IS to inform the trial court of the nature of
the offense charged, and not only to notify
the accused of what charge he is to meet.
but also to enable him to plead any judg-
ment which may be rendered In the case as
a bar to subsequent prosecution of the same
offense.
1.-The specification under the charge is de-
signed to distinctly inform the accused Of
the ofYense embraced within the general
charge.
IT am of the opinion that member of