Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-03-05

nation ssss b. 3, e. r. ss e:af'as the aeterh
Amount u Bazna yixsd.
Justice PritcharA nanaNd <aO.Ooe as the
amount ana Mes4es. Ntlker and Chaplin
were offered as suites.
rs the government sasisfed!' the court
asked.
1--WE are satisfisa witAa Mr., Wakes" re-
piled Mr.. Taggart:y Ism not acquainted
'.I.n qualify for the fill amount" Mr..
Walker anneuncedkfand }le was accepted.
Mr.. Taggart explained that the telegram
sent to Mr.. Beach, yesterday had not been
this city in time for the fearing. Mr. Beach
had telegraphed, fhoweVer. that in his
opinion, no grounds existed to warrant the
granting of a news trtaild
Groff's Status ss Policeman.
The question. WHAT'S the status in the
metropolitan police department Of Private
Samuel A. Groff?" is still unsettled by the,
Commissioners and the department officials.
The question Is regarded as an Interesting
one, and it is anticipated that even though
Croft has been convicted of conspiracy in
the Post Office Department frauds, and to-
day sentenced by Justice Pritehard to two
years imprisonment and to pay a fine OF
$4,000. still neither the major and super
infendent Of police nor the District Commas
sinners have the legal, authority to remove
Gron from the force In the absence or
action by the police trial board.
:. Another interesting phase OF the case
presented Is that until he Is removed the
District is obliged to pay him his regular
salary as a private. although Gron ~ per-
forming no actual service i'll the Depart
ment
The fact that Croft is row. and since his
suspension from the force last June. has
been drawing his regular salary as an OFF,
Ger. although the District has not had the
benefit OF his services. Is feature OF the
case that Will perhaps appeal more strong
ly than any other consideration, to the
citizens of the District .a
Several days ago Major sylvester called
Commissioner Vests attention to the fact
that Private Samuel "A. Croft of the Dis
trict police force: had been convicted in the
Criminal Court of conspiracy to defraud
the government Major. Sylvester desired
Information as to Private Grons status in
referred to the corporation counsel for
legal opinion The corporation counsel has
not as yet reported on the question.
Is Drawing Salary.
Croft was suspended from the force. as
the records OF the police department show.
during the month of June. 1903. Since that
time, however. he has received his regular
salary from the District. 1t was learned
today that the check for Mr.. Groff's salary
for the month OF February last has not
been delivered to him. out that it is in the
Office Of the disbursing officer at the Dis
trict building. Disbursing Officer Rogers
stated to reporter for The Star today
that Mr.. Croft has not made any demand
upon him for the delivery Of the check
for his last months salary.
Support for the proposition that Croft
cannot be removed from the police force
until after action by the police trial board
is found in an opinion rendered July l. 1903,
by Assistant Corporation Counsel A. Left
witch Sinclair, relative to the authority Of
the Commissioners to withhold Groffs sal
airy.
Opinion Given Last July.
In the opinion submitted last July, among
other things. Mr. Sinclair said:
ut appears that on the 9th day of June,
1903, as a result Of the investigation now
on foot in the Post ONCE Department, MIR.
Croft was indictsd by the grand jury of
this District for, violating certain United
States statutes; that since he was placed
under arrest, few days prior thereto, he
has been carried on the rolls of the police
department as suspended.
Maj. sylvester wishes to be advised as
to whether 1t is Within the power of the
Commissioners to- deprive Mr.. Croft of his
salary in the event of his being convicted
of the charges pending against him, the
idea being, I take it, TO withhold the off,
GERS salary until he has been tried, II 1t be
found that the Commissioners have such
authority.
This question. to my mind. is answered
by the last provfso of section of the act of
Congress approved February %, 1901, which
provides as follows:
That no removal from the police force
shall be made except on written charges
and after an opportunity for defense on the
part of the person against whom such
charges may be made
Only in Regular Way.
'The Commissioners being without au-
thority to remove a member of the police
force. except on written charges and after
an opportunity for defense on the part of
the person against whom such charges may
be made it necessarily follows, in my
opinion. that until Mr. Croft Is regularly and
discharged from service on
the force. after trial gratifying the re-
quirements OF this law. his salary should be
paid to him as heretofore"
From this ruling of Mr.. Sinclair 1t Is an
ticipated that the corporation counsel will
decide that Samuel A. Croft will have to be
tried before the police trial board before he
can be dismissed from the force in case the
Commissioners determine that this action
should be taken.