The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1910-12-05
Attorney Lambert Protests
Against DiSmj SSal Without
Due Process of Law.
EXPLAINS ACTION
IN SUPREME COURT
Counsel Charges 'Iasty Trial and
Snap Judgment" in Case of
Private Clark.

Relief from what Is alleged To be
unfair and Illegal procedure resulting
IN the fininE and dismissal Of members
Of the Metropolitan Police Force is the
aim OF action instituted in the District
Supreme Court by Attorney Wilton J.
Lambert, IN behalf of the Police AssO-
citation Of the District
On a showing that the District Com
missioners- had approved the findings Of
the trial board in the case Of Private
a B. Clark several weeks ago without
even giving an oral hearing OF having
O. a copy Of the testimony Justice Barn
ard issued a writ Of Certiorari COM
Peliins the Commissioners to produce
In court all the records in the case.
Together with the petition for a writ
OF certioTari was a prayer to have the
whole proceedings quashed and an
uulled-
Attorney Lambert declared today that
the principal purpose Of the action Is 70
impress upon the Commissioners that
police officers cannot be fined and dis
missed without Cue course OF law lie
stated that the Police Association Is be-
mind the case as there have been sew
ST'al Instances where policemen have not
oeen given the DrOverbial square deal
Petition Filed.
The petition IN the. Supreme Court
quotes. from an act of Congress ap-
proved June s. 1875 which provides
That no persou shall be removed
from said police force except upon writ
ten charges preferred against him IN the
name OF the major and s1Deriutendeut
OF said police force TO the trial board
or boards hereinafter provided for and
aIJer an opportunity shall have been
suorded him OF being heard IN ms de-
Contrary 10 this provision, It Is al
legged. Private Clark was not given q
falr opportunity Of proving his inuO-
cence OF charges preferred against him
Il IS charged thar he had retained At
torney Lambert TO represent him. but
the Trial Board did not accord him the
usual continuance because his attorney
vas engaged in an urgent case In the
District Supreme Court
An appeal was then taken TO the
District Commissioners, but they con
hrmed the decision Of the trial board
and approved Of the fine Of so assessed
against the policeman II was alleged
that the Commissioners reached their
decision without COuSideT5-C the teSti-
mCny, which had not been written I'D.
This fact indicates that very little, II
any consideration was given the mat
ter asserted Attorney Lambert
Charge Against Clark
The particular. charge against Pr
vare Clark was that he had been heard
u say thar he would try 90 put a woua-
an who conducts a lunch room on p
street northwest out Of business. and
that he intedfered with the business by
ordering away persons with teams and
vehicles who stopped in front Of the
place He was fined SO on his convic-
ton
1T Is the principle involved in the
hascy trial and snap Judgment that We
are protesting against although we are
confident that Private Clark would have
been cleared OF the charges had he been
given fair trial. said Attorney Lam
bert Unless a stop is put 10 such pro-
CeedinEs there Viii be no end TO che IN
justice done the policemen