New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1912-10-19
Has to Get Mayors 20. K" Be-
fore ReOpening a Case.
DISAGREED WITH COURTS
Deputy Commissioner Tells
Aldermen How Men Dismissed
Have Been Reinstated.

James +. Dillon, Fourth Deputy Police
Commissioner, who has risen from the
rank of patrolman, spent yesterday az
ternoOn under the verbal battery Of
Emory r. Buckner at the aldermanic
investigating committee inquiry. I'm the
City Hall. The committee wanted TO know
just how and why policemen dismissed
from the force became rcinstated. and
the commissioner, with his pugnacious
right list ana jaw thrust ever forward,
told them.
The witness explained that his principal
duties were to preside at trials OF dein-
qucnt policemen i'm the boroushs OF Man
haitian, The Bronx and Richmond. He
was first interrogatcd closely regarding the
case Of Thomas T. Campbell dismissed
from the force in 1902 by Commissioner
Partridge after unsuccessfulIy lighting his
case in two courts, and I'm August, 1911,
reinstated by Commissioner Waldo, after
a rehcaring before Dillon.
lie was asked how he came to reopen
the Campbell case, and replied that Com
missioner Waldo had orally asked him to.
He declared, also, that Commissioner
Waldo had never told him how he wanted
the rehea-lng 10 come out. He said that II
was necessary first to secure the permits
sion OF the Mayor before case could be
reheard. The papers were sent to the
Mayor, he said, adding: 81 have always
considered the Mayors knowledge Of the
law as positively classical"
Mr.. Buckner stated that he could find
81. 90 q Of 81.
ing, and asked that Dillon look for the
record. and indicated 10y his questions
that the case was Of such great lmpor-
tanCe that IL should have called for great
deliberation on DIIlon's part
Captain Niles O'RcIlly made the charges
against Campbell, declaring that the po-
Nceman had been found of post and I'm n
saloon with other policemen. Dillon came
TO the decision that the captain had been
mistaken in his Identification Of Campbell.
Mr.. Buckner read a decision on the case
by Justice Ingraham, Of the Appellate
Division Of the Supreme Court, IN which
the court decided the evidence against the
policeman sufficient
Il am not a lawyer, sir, but I consider
that O'RcilIy had not seen Campbell In the
saloon" said Dillon.
Then Mr. Buckner passed TO the case OF
Lieutenant Thomas +. Foody. who was re-
instated by Commissioner Waldo upon
Dnlon's recommendation.
Mr.. Ruckncr then read the dismissal
OF Lieutenant Foody, which gave Con
duct unbecoming an officer" as one Of the
four reasons for the dismissal The act
permitting rehoarinEs IN the case OF dis
missed policemen gives this as one Of the
causes for which no rchearlng can be
given.
How about that" asked Mr.. Buckner
"Foody was not dismissed for conduct
unbecomlng an officer. but for that and
other things combined"
Mr. Buckner read letter from Alice r.
Rogers asking why her husband could not
get another chance. In answer. the wit
ness wrote that the case could not be
leopcned. because Rogers was convicted
OF conduct unbecoming ar officer.
Now" said Mr. Bucknor, will you ok
plain the difference between Rogers and
Foody? Each was dismissed FOR conduct
an officer and something else:
one according 10 you could be rehcard
and the other could not"
That's easy" replied the witnesses.
'Foody had no special charge Of that
nature against him and Rogers did. 1
wrote to his wife to let her down easy.
Rogers asked for three days leave Of abb
scucc TO bury granny who turned out
TO be n dog, and he had 10 go TO Albany
10 bury IT, Rogers lied to get three days
of and that was why he was dismissed