The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1910-05-31
Lawyer, on Stand, Gives
Ethical View in Pol
lock-Wise Case.
WORK PUT
BURTON IN JAIL
Mayor Richardson Relates Facts
Leading to Call for Investiga-
ton - Accused Councilmen
Tell of Their Connection
With Dairymen and
Swill Matter.

Swill Matter.
Evidence in the Pollock Wise inves-
tigation closed last night. Mayor Rich-
ardson. as the star witness OF the con-
Guiding session, telling OF the facts
which had come to his knowledge. anu
which led to the belief that the two
Councilmen- attorneys had accApte1
$500 to secure the passage OF an or
dinance through the City Council. and
of his consequent communications 10
the president of the Council and the
Commonwealth's attorney.
Several attorneys were placed on tha
stand to testify as to matters of legal
ethics and both Mr.. Pollock and Mr..
Wise made extended sta tements. Tho.
case closed without argument, and the
committee will meet from time to
time at the call OF the chairman to
formulate it's report which, 1t is ex-
pccted, will be presented to the Com
mon Council on Monday night.
At the beginning of the session =
letter was presented from James F.
Cannon. who had been summoned to
appear as witness as to legal ethics.
Mr. Cannon wrote that he was unwill-
ing to appear, as he had been coz
suited by a member of the Board OF
Health before the investigation wns
ordered and had advised him to lay
the information before the Mayor. and
he therefore thought 1t improper for
him to testify.
Former City Attorney Charles v.
Meredith was also excused from tcs-
tifying as to the ethical questions in
volved, for while he did not appear
as attorney for Mr. Wise, yet he had
been consulted as to certain phases
of the case.
Mayor, on the stnna.,.ss,5 s.,s-.s- -
| Mayor Richardson WAS then sworn
and told or the facts surrounding
| the approval of the dairy ordinance.
He testified that a large number OF
ordinances were presented to him by
the City Clerk; that when he cam a
to the one in question he did not
readily see where the amendment
came in. and laid 1T aside for closer.
scrutiny. The amendment proved to
be the striking out of the words dis
tillery waste usually called swill
During that day the Mayor testi-
fed. MIR. Wise camein and engaged me
in conversation. and asked me whether
/ had approved the ordinance as to
the dairyinen told him had not
that 1t was a material amendment and
! wished first to ascertain whether.
it was approved by the Board of
Health. He said that it was. That
afternoon I went up to the healtl, Of
flee and found for myself that 1t wati
the ordinance recommended by tho
health authorities. Later that day r
met Mr.. Wise either In my Office or
in the hall. and told him had ap-
Pollock in connection with the ordi-
nance. Mr. Wise did not say anything
about being employed by dairymcn.''
The Mayor was asked as TO the in-
vestigation he had held and as TO
whether he had had any dairymen be-
fore him. He said:
Like Criminal OffcnHe Ems
THE manner in which this infor-
nation came to me made 1t appear as
a criminal offense. and had I sum-
moned dairymen they could have res
ticipants Under the statutes Mr..
Folkes as Commonwealth's attorney
could examine them and guarantee
them immunity as Commonwealth
witness. 1 am informed that Mr..
Folkes did examine a number"
The Mayor said that former Dairy
Inspector Curtis had not volunteered
any information nor come to him until
summoned: that he had read Mr.. Cur
tis's testimony as reported In The
Times Dispatch, and 1t agreed sub.
stantially with what Mr.. Curtis had
told him. Mr.. Wise and Mr.. Pollock
We're summoned. the Mayor continued.
and told him that they had got per-
mission from DIR. Levy to use the
waste.
They did not tell me that they did
not consider an amendment necessary.
he said. They stated that they oh
tained this $500 fee for the purpose
of getting a construction placed on
the ordinance by Or, Levy by which
they could feed this waste to cows. OF
course. understood that legal con-
structlon of an ordinance to he aus
thoritative must be from the CITY
Attorney. but If an executive officer
had so construed 1t they would no
doubt have found 1t satisfactory.
His Idea nx to Fee.
II inferred from the first statement
they made to me that they had got
this money for getting from the board
OF Health its recommendation Of
change In ordinance. but subsequently,
Mr.. Mise came to me with letter
from Mr.. Deitrick giving his opinion
of the difference between distillery
waste and swill, and Mr., Wise then
explained that their employment wau
to get DR.. Levy TO difterenttate ana
allow the use OF such waste as was
I Wholesome. ..
"As to the fund raised, Mr.. Curtis.
and think Mr., Noble. stated to me
tnat Mr.. Kemp and another, whosa
name do NOT recall. told them that
they had put ups,the money. and TINT
1t was not to be paid over until t'rS,
ordinance was signed, am positive
as to Curtis and think am correct
as to Noble. Noble gave mo detailsa
statement OF the amount contributed
bv each dairyman think cnrtts
added one or two names.
y. II, Shurn,. a dairrn.an who had