Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1905-09-05
HEARINGS GRAN TED
TWO CASES CONSIDERED IN
WHICH POLICEMEN FIGURE.
]. s, Miller of Ninth Precinct and 81.
A. McNinch Of tho Third
Precinct.

Interest in the case OF Policeman J. 8.
Miller OF the.ninth precinct who was twice
before the police trial board on charge OF
conduct unbecomng an officer" In that
he arrested Herschel Reese, a small boy.
without warrant. cause or provocation.
was re-awakened today when Commissioner
West and Acting Engineer Commissioner
Chester Harding passed the papers in the
case, agreeing to allow Millers attorneys
to appear In his behalf before the board
of Commissioners.
Miller 1t will be remembered gained
notoriety following his act In taking the
Reese boy into custoday after the latter.
replying to a question to his name, said
''puddin' In tame" The majority of the
police trial board found Miller not guilty,
but in a minority opinion. written by Chair
man A. Leftwich Sinclair. Miller was Sc
verely condemned for his action, and Mr..
Sinclair moved that the policeman be fined
s25 Major Sylvester concurred In this TO
the extent of recommending fine of $15.
Commissioner West agreed with Major
Sylvester. but before the case was acted
upon by the board OF Commissioners At
torney Wilton J. Lambert appeared in be-
half of Private Miller and asked permits
sion to introduce additional testimony IN
the case. which was granted. The case
was then sent back to the trial board Cor
the taking of further testimony. 1t ap-
pears that two additional witnesses gave
testimony in the case but according to q
the Commissioners the testimony of only
one of these witnesses was material.
Views of Mr.. Sinclair.
Mr.. Snclairs letter is as follows:
Il have the honor to transmit to you
herewith the additional testimony taken by
the police trial board in the case Of Private
John s. Miller of the metropolitan police
force. pursuant to your direction No other
testimony was offered in behalf of the ac-
cused.
''It will be observed that this additional
testimony was addressed to the establish
ment of the proposition that Herschel
Reese. the boy who was arrested by the ac-
cused. participated in the building of the
fire in question. and that. therefore, the &C
cused was warranted in placing the boy
under arrest, carrying him to the police
station and preferring charge of disor-
derby conduct against him.
II beg leave to state that l still retain
the views expressed in my dissent in this
case. AS the case stands now, the accused
and one other witness, Edward F. Wash
ington (colored), say that Reese assisted in
the kindling of the fire. which Reese him.
self and two other little boys emphatically
deny.
II think the accused is undoubtedly guilty
of the charge brought against him and that
he should be fined"
Matter of influence.
Attorney Robert III. Mcneil, former pri-
vate secretary to Senator Pritchard, whose
name figures in the Miller case, looked
after the interests of young Reese before
the trial board. It's alleged that Senator
Pritchard used his influence to get Reese's
father position in the government print
ing office. 1t Is also alleged that Private
Miller, before arresting young Reese, asked
him who his father was, where he was en-
ployed. and upon being told by young Reese
that his father worked In the big printery,
Private Miller is alleged to have inquired
as to who got him his job. He was in
formed by the boy that Senator Pritchard
of South Carolina had used his influence in
his fathers behalf. and thereupon it Is al
legged that Miller declared that big man
amt here any more"
Former Senator Pritchard was until re-
Gently associate Justice of the Supreme
Court OF the District of Columbia and is
now United States circuit judge in his ma
tive state.
In the minority opinion OF Mr.. Sinclair.
which throws more light on the case. he
said:
'.The arrest of this boy. Herschel Reese,
to my mind, was wholly inexcusahle. It
was violation OF the boys right OF per-
souai -llherty--a trsspass, pure and simpls
The right OF personal liberty II some-