Waterbury evening Democrat., 1906-01-25

1 him 10 vote according to Its views.
 No board has the right to say to any policeman that. it wants him to vote as it desires him. There was no per 1 nicious activity on the part of the of ficer. Maybe he was opposed to some i of the members 8n the last board of safety politically. but was that req
 son for his dismissal under the cloak
 of some other charge! If there was no charge against him from any of the , fraternal associations to which he be- 1 longs. it was wrong for the board to fbring charges against him under the guise that they cane from any of these associations. His accuser was his judge. which is contrary to all law and fair dealing. Why did the board wait two years to bring this charge! asked Mir Russell with great vigor and feeling. It is quite a common occur
 renee. he said. for the supreme court to reopen case. and therefore why should nOI the board reopen this mat ter! The board was the same as the superior court ill way and why should it not be as fair as that court? ? Mayor Thoms said there may be
 some legal doubt as to the power of the board 10 reopen the case. Here NIT Russell cited Roberts on The Rule of Order in which it was
 shown that police lieutenant in the District of Columbia was dismissed.
 The lieutenant objected and demanded
 a retrial The courts allowed his plea but every politician in the District of
 Columbia shivered in his shoes and
 matters were finally adjusted by giv- ing the ex-lieutenant of police Job as inspector of streets wirfi larger salary than he received in his police job.
 This seemed to be soaker for the board and Commissioner Minor moved that the matter be tabled till next
 week to give Mir Russell time to look
 up further authority and also for the
 beard to get an opinion from City At tofney on the matter.
 Following is Mir McNIff's petition in full for restoration to the police de- partment:
 To the Honorable Boarl of Commis- sioners of Public Safety of the City
 of Waterbury:
 Gentlemen-Your petitioner hereby
 petitions your honorable board to re-
 open the case of Miles McNiff. tried by the last board of public safety. November l. 1905. and that your hon. orable boaN grant -etrial of the
 case for the following reasons: l. A fair and impartial trial was
 not accorded your petitioner ?. That bis constitutional right to
 have counsel was denied by said board of public safety.
 3. Reasonable notice and oppOrtun- ity to be heard was not granted to the
 petitioner. as required by section lO2. P 55. of the charter of the city of Wa
 terbury.
 1. Your petitioner was dismissed from the police department by said
 board because of his political beliefs
 in contravention of section 104 of the charter of the city of Waterbury.
 ,. The primary aud moving caus.
 and motive of the hearing was to dis
 miss your petitioner because of his
 political beliefs and opinions and nor
 because of any conduct unbecoming
 an officer.
 6. No written complaint wss made
 against your petitioner 10 said bWird
 of public safety as required by sectiol.
 33. of the police ordinances of inc city
 of Waterbury.
 .. That the alleged charges were Of a private nature and did not have anything to do with your petitioner as a member of the police department of the city of Waterbury. 8. Said alleged charges of conduct unbecoming an officer 9ere nOt sub- stantiated and further :ile alleged acts
 of misconduct were known 10 said board for more than a year previous 10 said dismissal and no action was taken by said board until after rfe last municipal election. Dated at Waterbury this 20th day of January. 19O6
 The board then adjourned to the tower in the Leavenworth street en- zine house but it was not a tower meeting