New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-10-12
ALDERMEN HIT SNAGS
Witnesses Evasive Regarding
Reinstatement of Lieutenant.

The aldermanic committee charged with
investigating the Police Department
struck several snags yesterday. when II
tried 10 find out why Lieutenant Thomas
II. Foody. dismissed from the force by
Commissioner Cropsey for conduct unbe-
coming an officer, was reinstated by his
successor, Commissioner Waldo, The first
witness on the stand was George w
Sterling. chief assistant In the Corpora
ton counses office, who in December
1910, wrote an opinion for Commissioner
Cropsey, In which he stated that the
Commissioner had no power to reopen
the case OF a police officer dismissed on
that ground.
Mr. sterllng's opinion was read by EN-
DRY r. Buckner. counsel for the alder
manic committee, who then produced q
letter from Mr. Sterling 10 the Municipal
Civil Service Commission, which eS-
pressed the opinion that Commissioners
Waldo was entirely justified in reinstat-
ing the dismissed lieutenant The letter
told of a conversation between Mr.. ster-
ling, Commissioner Waldo and Frank
Spencer secretary OF the Civil Service
Commission, and went on to say that II
was unnecessary to repeat the facts
Which led Mr.. Sterling to make an ex-
ception in the case OF Lieutenant Foody
to the rule he had previously laid down.
Mr.. Buckner eDdeavored TO CLEAN from
both Mr.. Sterling and MIR. Spencer the
nature OF the conversation In which COM
missioner Waldo participated, but he met
with Indifferent success. Mr.. Sterling re-
fused to disclose what he remembered
OF II. on the ground that he acted on
that occasion In the capacity OF counsel
TO the Commissioner, and that Section sSo
of the Code of Civil Procedure forbade a
lawyer to dIyulge any matter of dis
cussion between himself and his client.
He was backed up In this stand by Will
lam McMurtrie Speer, appointed by Cor
poration Counsel Watson TO attend the
hearings OF the committee, who rose TO
his feet for the first time since the be-
ginning OF the inquiry.
Mr.. Buckner then tried to discover
what Mr.. Sterling considered conduct
unbecomlng an officer" with a view to
ascertaining, II possible. why he had con-
tradicted his own earlier opinion when
the case OF Lieutenant Foody was brought
before him. Mr.. Sterling replied that
different people defined the offence In
different ways. and that he himself
might change his Idea OF II at different
times and under different conditions
Would you consider commissioner
within his rights II he charged heuten-
ant who was found in the captains room
OF a. police station with beer In front 81
him, when he should have been at the
desk, with conduct unbecomips an on'
cer?" inquired Mr. Buckner.
Il think he would be within his rights,
answered the witness.
well, that Is the Foody case" Mr..
Buckner declared.
"You say 1t Is" responded Mr.. Startling,
1T don't recall whether 1t 10 or not
The next witness TO take the STAND was
Lieutenant Maurice Harmon. who was
transferred to the Far Rockaway precinct
on July 2i, 1911. after having served In
the legal bureau at Headquarters for four
years. AS soon as Mr.. Buckner began TO
question him as TO whether Commissions
Waldo had conferred with him in regard
TO the Foody case he met with the same
obstacle which Mr.. Sterling had thrown In
his way. The witness explained that he
had been admitted to the bar In 1903. and
that he feared he would jsopardiss hts
standing should he divuiss conversations
which he might have bad with the. Conn