The Montgomery advertiser., 1905-03-28
SELMA POLICEMEN REINSTATED
 AT MEETING OF CITY COUNCIL
ot hear him speak to the newspaper

not hear him speak to the newspaper
 Alter the examination of Mayor At. kins. Chief of Police Walters and the defense opened its case, conducted by Attorneys Qharles and Craig. Po- liceman Davis was the first to testify on the side of the defense. He de- the newspaper correspondent nor did he make a demonstration against the newspaper man. On cross-examina- tion the policeman said he was not drunk, and repeated the assertion that he neither spoke to the correspondent nor pointed his finger at the former.
 Policeman Grimm succeeded Police man Davis. He said he was in the po- lice room at the time and that he didn't hear Davis say anything. He repeated what Policeman Smith said to the correspondent in refusing to give
 Policeman Griffin said that he heard Policeman Mosley say to the cores pondent that one Advertiser man got a dirt road ticket out of town and he would get one in a few days" Policf- man Philen testified to practically the same thing that Policeman Griffin said. Policeman Smith said he told the cor- respondent he didn't want to make a would go to the proper authority" He said he didn't think the corres- ,pondent had been insulted. He didn't near FOl1Ceman DaVlS say dnytnlnS to the correspondent.
 Policeman Mosely told in detail what he remembered of the occurrence at the police department March 18th. He admitted that he told the correspon- dent that 'one Advertiser man came down here and good citizen gave him a road ticket out of town. and if you don't mind, you vii get one back insisted that he was not speaking seriously to the correspondent and meant what he said merely in a casual manner. He said in answer to ques- tion by counsel for the defense that his feet were cropped in window. and during his conversation he made neither motion Tor gesture.
 He was the last witness examined City Attorney shafer, Judge Craig and Colonel Quarles addressed the council. The city attorney called the attention of the council to laws and ordinances that to make the suspension final or to discharge the policeman from the ser- vice two-thirds vote wuold be nec- essary. He pointed out that under the charged for intoxication or malfeas- ance of duty. The chief of police, he said had no right to suspend the police officers. that contingency falling on
 Judge Craig's address was short He reviewed the evidence and showed the preponderance of testimony in favor of Policemen Davis, which was that Policeman Davis didn't speak to the correspondent of The Advertiser Judge Craig followed the argument of MT. Shafer and appealed to the coun- cil to acQuit the policeman.
 Colonel Quarles made a lengthy ad- dress in behalf of Policeman Moseley in which he quoted passages of law bearing on the prerogative of the coun- ell. T contend" said Colonel Quarles. that even if the policeman were guilty as charged. this council could not pro- ceed to discharge the policeman" and he quoted law from various decisions that substantiated his argument. In the course of Colonel Quarles' argu- ment he insisted that The Advertiser had unjustly accused tho policeman and that they had right to resent the | differences thrown out by The Adver- tiser. He termed the publication of the charges made by other persons and published in The Advertiser as slan- derous.
 The peroration of Colonel Quarles in 1 his appeal in behalf of the suspended men was forceable. and evidently had great weight with the council.