The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-03-28
Advertiser Correspondent
 Made Scapegoat. UNFAIRNESS IN EVIDENCE Mosely's Remark Was "Mere-
 ly Casual. Man Who Made original Charges Not Allowed to substaDtiate Them Chief "sees Nothing Wrong"
 With Force.
Advertiser Bureau,

Seluld, NldTCu St.
 After an investigation lasting nearly three hours tonight, President Peacock of the City Council ruled that Police men Ben Moseley and J. B. Davis. charged with conduct unbecoming of- ficers of the law, were still members of the police force and that their sus- pension by Chief of Police Walters was illegal. The policemen are. by the ruling of President Peacock, re-instated into service, and they will resume their duties on the force tomorrow.
 President Peacock and the Council arrived at this ruling after the intro- duction of legal references bearing on the case of the policemen by City At torney Shafer and Attorneys Quarles and Craig, defending the accused of- ficers. It was shown to the Council by the attorneys that the policemen were not legally suspended by Chief of Police Walters, and that if they were guilty of the charge of unbecom- ing conduct the Council would have no power to discharge them. Acting on the legal advice of the attorneys, the Council voted the reinstatement of Po- licemen Moseley and Davis.
 The meeting of the Council was marked by the opportunity of the de- fense to misrepresent and vfllify and condemn, with the Council silent in the proceedings. The freedom of the press was not granted and the correspondent of The Montgomery Advertiser, whom the two policemen were charged with insulting and threatening, was made the scapegoat of the Police Department and of the persons who made the orig inaI charges. Instead of fairly and |conservatively Investigating the charges against the policemen. there diGnncition tn Shnnldar every charge and every utterance that has been made against the police on the correspondent, who was utterly de- fenseless except in his replies to ques- tions in direct and cross-examination.
 Held Up as Unfair Critic.
 Although the correspondent of The Advertiser has never made any charge or allegations, there was a grave tend ency to hold him before the Council as a critic and an unjust critic of the competent" police force. Not a word was asked the accusers of the police, nor were they summoned. On the oth- CT hand, Editor Nunnelee of The Times. who made the original charge, which was quoted in The Advertiser, was not allowed to tell the why and wherefore of the charges.
 City Attorney Shafer conducted the investigation for the city. To each witness he directed the same question and from each witness for the defense he got practically the same answer. He did not plead the newspaper cor respondents right to expect civil -reat- ment from the police on any mission. instead of expecting insults and go- ing prepared for insults when the question of the correspondents right in the police room was questioned by the defense.
 Mayor Atkins was the first to testi- fy. He said he first heard of the oc- through Editor Nunelee, which pre- ceded his conversation with Correspon- dent Hamilton. He preferred the charges against the policemen. he said, on what he had been told.
 Editor Nunnelee told on the stand what had been told him by the news paper correspondent.
 Chief of Police Walters admitted that when he walked into the police room just after the occurrence, Correspon- dent Hamilton turned to him and re- said. The Chief said he replied that he thought Policeman Moseley was joking. Chief Walters vouched for the reputation of the two suspended men. He further said that he saw nothing wrong with the police force.
 The question of the correspondents alleged misrepresentation of the chief was brought up and discussed but the
 
 and reply to Chief Walters's card was not touched on nor allowed to be touched on.
 Editor Neil of The Journal in an- swer to a question of Colonel Quarles as to newspaper men padding" and digging up sensations for space replied that the idea was erroneous. Not near so much as lawyers" added MT. Neil, and the councilmen and t50 spec tatorS laughed.
 Correspondents Evidence. Correspondent Hamilton was next examined and his narrative of the oc- currence was virtually the same as that fin his statement printed in The Advertiser on the Friday following the alleged insult to him by the police.
 On cross-examination the correspon- dent said that he could not be mistak- wis pointed his finger and said, You have said just enough about this" The correspondent said that he would not swear that the police force was rot ten' and that only as quotation from other persons had be made that asser- tion in The Advertiser.
 There were attempts by the counsel representing the policemen to induce the newspaper correspondent to an- swer for every charge that had been made against the police.
 The evidence on the side of the de- fense was interesting, especially in one particular. In regard to Officer Davis , it was entirely contradictory to the correspondents testimony. Officer Da- wis declared that he did not address ley, Griffin and Philan said they did