The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1915-05-17
wua TIKI RESULT BE THE SAME?

s.. the Investigation into ehe conduct Of the
n1carnad Po.ice Department IS nearing its
|xio~e. esnav Few more items al eorroboratory
tesfsrnony -suE3n TO be taken and The work
~ the committee viii be al dcpe save the
frrnanlssion o, it's report The public will look
wdfh interest for that report, and 10 it for an
expressson Of ofscial opinion matters o: vi
IN, Importance TO the whole city-to all Fir-
|1iHia.
& The work Of the Council committee mas closely
pnraileled, or more properly speaking has
|zaoeely followed. that OF the Vico Commission.
|fAe Tfrginia,e has remarked this tendency
&efore. and while We believe tho work Of the
@N1ce Commission was thorough, accurate and
@neaYching, we do not believe that the intention
~ the Council in appointing its investigating
c0mmittee was merely to secure checking up
md confederation of the testimony secured by
Abe Vice Commission. We are sure that the
puhlic aid not expect such action. but looked
md looked Justly. for some original work by
Sfhe committee
81 However, this view o: the had not been
znken by the committee itself, and so public
Expectation and public right have been disap-
SSointed Therefore the interest of the city at
fresent In the committee is in watching what
1ecision II Will reach after geing over the same
HrOund covered by the Vice Commission, The
vice Commission is of the ablest bodies
that has been engaged IN the public interest
I'M Richmond for many years. 1t has won the
respect and confidence Of the city by its patri-
x<4s~ nna patnstakiuv efforts IN hiring about het.
B 4er living conditions in the city. From the evi.
h Eence that came into its possession In the dis
charge OF its duty the commission reached the
cnnclnsion tina, the conduct of members of the
3 PcIice Department was of such a character as
L ID warrant It's grave consideration by ID -
1eenstitutea. legal body of investigation. While
the report of the commission did not state the
opinion of the commission as TO the guilt or in
Ssnocence. of members of the Police Board who
IRE charged with the enforcement of the law.
tie commission intimated very plainly that
4here have been phases of our police admins
srAtion which call for censure. Where shall
that censure be placed?
VI The investigating committee has had before
q III the witnesses who testified before the Vice
Facts; giving it,. therefore the same opportunity
#xr fudge Of tho effectiveness or inetiicency OF
\ Inv enforcement as had the Vice Commission.
/ The committee might have gone good deal
1nrther than T. has gone. but it elected not to
40 so-why the committee alone knows. What
! now. will be the conclusion reached by the CON-
&aitfee? VIII it be the same as or different
/ from that arrived at by the Vice Commission.
md. II different why: The committee bears
Eaxn mind, trust, that the facts it is to de-
b loRmine are not whether the testimony Of this
Aor that witness has been borne out whether
SAH the witnesses have always conducted them.
Moelves as they should have done. but whether
#1hs enforcement of the law in Richmond by the
sNp1tce Department, from Mayor down through
sEnief OF Police. Police Commissioners and men,
u nxx Of the force has really resulted In enforce
#cant? That is the main ISSUE has the law
een enforced in Richmond, and II 1t has not
een enforced who Is responsible? VIII the
ke4uIt OF the committees work be the same as
1Aat of the Vice Commissions. and If not
NY not7