The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1910-05-26

because Or. Levy denied having made
the statement before l had time to
write It,"
Councilmen Lynch and Radcliffe
pressed the witness closely regarding
his memory and conversation with DR..
Levy and by the perslsteney OF their
questioning and phraseology of their
interrogations provoked remark
from Chairman Richardson that they
were going toyond the bounds OF the
investigation. Several mem bers OF the
council stated that the committee
seemed be hostile to the witness
Notwithstanding the pressure upon
Mr. Robertson, he adhered rigidly to
his original statement and seemed to
impress tho maiority of his hearers
with the truthfulness Of his testimony.
DIR. Levy Denies.
DIR. Levy took the stand and en-
phatically contradicted Mr.. Robert
son, denying that he had told the re-
porter that the ordinance had been
suspended. DIR. Levy said the re-
porter had evidently misunderstood
him. The health officer said he had
never told anyone the ordinance had
hoeu suspended, and he had never
used the term ''Your people" to Mr..
Pollock. because he did not know
that the latter was employed as an
attorney, The first time he heard the
term was III the investigation, accord
Ing to DR.. Levy.
President Peters Denies.
Although not germane TO the inves-
ugation, involving personality to some
extent, but tending perhaps in some
degree to reflect on Mr. Robertson's
/ credibility. Mr.. Lynch called Presi-
! dent Peters, OF the Common Council,
. Ag ha a
/ porter's accuracy in an entirely sepa-
/ rate and distinct matter.
NTH leFisea-h e,d-stnteti- fu-,Fhe
Virginia that Mr. Peters was expert
eneing difficulty in getting councimen
to serve on the investigation commit
tee, and that a number of the men
/ whose names appeared on the original
! draft of the committee--in other
words, the tentative committee Mr..
Peters had in mind to appoint-had
declined to serve. The president of
the Council denied that this was true.
I although ire ttd'r1itted.ti1at a number
OF councilmen had asked him not to
oppoint them.
MIR. Robertson wrote his story about
/ the difficulty Mr.. Peters experjenced-
II ne experienced any--on information
received from councilman who Is iu
close touch with the politics OF the
present Council The source OF this
Information was believed to be abso.
lutely reliable. and reiterated to Mr.
robertson and his employers Thurs.
day that the story of the renort I'D
oimculty was true. notwithstandinp
Mr.. Peters fiat denial.
Mr.. Peters told of interruptions IN
mis- business by reporters anxious IA
learn who would be the members OF
the committee.
Truth Declares Pollock.
Attorney Pollock arose and mada q
statement In which he said the testi
mony Of Mr.. cutchins and Mr.. Robert
son was absolute truth and that while
he had not seen the statement thai
DIR. Levy had suspended the ordinance
In the paper for which Mr. Robertson
wrote. he had heard from the reporter
and others that DIR. Levy had told the
scribe that tho ordnance had been sus-
pended and that although to reporer
had no inclination to become involved
in the investigation. he, (Pollock1 be-
lieved the reporter a material witness
Judge George l.. Christian. formerly
of the Husting Court, gave IL as his
opinion that an amendment to the or
dlnance was necessary before the
daifymen could legally feed the waste
10 their cows, Judge Pollard aud NJ
II. Fulton, who said the conduct OF
Messrs. Pollock and Wise was proper
but differed with them regarding the
necessity for an amendment to the
ordinance. AS to the ethics OF council
men representing persons who wished
"A change IN ordinances or a susper
sion of them Judge Christian said
that was something which each attor-
MN IL. l,{.-