The Washington herald., 1914-02-18

Would you believe him under oath?"
why, judging from certain expert
| ences-"
| Wait a minute" shouted the corpora
| ton attorney, interrupting the witness.
You know very well, being a lawyer,
| that you cannot answer that question in
| that way Mr.. Syme proceeded to ex-
plain that such questions and answers
would do an injustice to the man in
volved.
! o'DOnoghue then modified the question,
asking the witness as to Proctor's repu-
| tation among the firemen.
"Reputation Not Good.-
Among these men his reputation is de-
| cidedly not good" was the reply of the
witness, who then told of certain charges
preferred by Proctor against the lstter's
! own company, which. he said, were found
to be lacking the slightest scintilIa OF
| truth
| James NJ. Burns. superintendent Of
| Mount OIivet Cemetery. testified that
Proctor had asked him to sign a petition
| I'd that he uhe witness) had declared
his readiness TO sign il. but otherwise
had never given il thought"
! Clarence r Denohoe testified TO having
declined to sign a petition for Proctor.
Earlier in the day Patrick Joseph Hol-
| lohan. on the witness stand. said Sullivan
VS. with the fire department what Grant
was to the union army. leader among
men All of the other witnesses highly
praised the deputy chiefs efficiency as a
| fire fighter. When HOllohan was asked
whether. so far as he knew. Sullivan had
ever been inefficient, the witness replied
emphatically:
IF man told me that I would say
! that he's crazy
Other Witnesses Heard.
Other witnesses examined yesterday
| were:
Lieut. J. r. Groves. Capts. Thomas
O'Connor. Ernest Howard, II. F. McCon-
nell. John II. Virnstein. Lieut.. NJ. ID.
Murray. Driver \. J. BarGagni. Privates
| +. B. Rollins, Frank S. Reed. John y.
Egan, Second Battalion Chief Samuel r.
| Henry. who was appointed to the fire
department on the same day as Sullivan;
Capt. p. ID. Martin. Private Lloyd, E. L.
| Nelson. and Acting Fourth Battalion
| Chief Timothy Donohoe.
As TO the charge of ineficiency. speci-
| fed by the fact that Sullivan, as acting
| chief. sent five men into the burning
American five and ten cent store building
in Seventh street early December - last,
| although there were no lives at stake.
the trial board has already made up its
mind. according to statement by Chair
.
| hearing.
Whether in the minds OF the trial board
members this charge is sustained or not.
the board yesterday gave it TO under
stand that they desired TO hear further
testimony as to the question whether 1t
was good fire-fghting'' to send the men
into the place where later they came
near losing their lives.
Right Thing 10 DO.
More than two-score witnesses. most
of them expert fire-fighters, have testi-
| fed that in their opinion Sullivan's ac-
tion in sending the men into the building
was the only thing to do" Not sin
| gle witness criticised this action. II may
be safely stated that the boards decision
on this charge is in accordance with the
| favorable testimony in the case.
As to the second charge. that OF neg
leCt of duty. specified by the failure on
Sullivan s part TO notify Chief Engineer
Wagner of the position in which the men
were. no positive prediction can be VEN
tured. That Corporation Attorney Con-
rad Syme holds this failure to be an Of
fense on Sullivan's part has been clearly |
indicated in she manner and wording of
his questions while examining and cross
examining the various witnesses The |
defense claims that because Of the alb
solute safety of the men at the time Sui |
HNan sent tuenl INTO lne InS
deputy chief had no cause to report to |
Chief Wagner, when the latter arrived |
on the scene. Counsel for the accused |
further claim that when Wagner sent |
Sullivan TO the roof of the adjoining |
building. where the deputy chief stayed |
for more than an hour, the chief engi- |
neer took full command and responsible |
ity for the entire situation and for the |
safety of all companies. In addition, |
Sullivan's attorneys point to the absence |
of a rule governing the case.
To Defend Wagner.
This much NAV be ventured in the way
Of prediction: That the corporation at |
torney will contend that Wagner, whom |
some of the witnesses have held respon- |
sible, cannot be blamed for the reason |
that he had received no report from |
Sullivan as to the location of No. en- |
gine company. The defense, on the other |
hand. will cite the testimony of the vast |
majority of witnesses to the effect that |
the chief engineers duty is to ascertain |
for himself :he position of every indi-
vidual company.
Which Of these two contentious is
shared by the trial board remains to be |
seen; the answer to this question will de-
eide the case.