Five Mile Beach weekly journal., 1920-10-15

this witness to Alfred i. SOudeT, chlet
of the detective bureau in the city Of
Philadelphia. with the purpose in view
of securing a few extra men for Labor
Day service. A. l.. Sherlock, acting
chief of Wildwood, claims to have
seen this letter.
In the October 1st issue Of the
JOURNAL two resolutions were pub
lished that had been passed by q ina
jorlty of one vote at the September
18th meeting Of the board of commits
sioners. The resolutions in question
set forth that in the judgment of the
commissioners Jonathan Hand, the
city solicitor, is not a proper person to
represent the city In certain suits in
which this municipality is now in
volved. When Commissioner Smith
was asked to give his reasons for trying
to dump Hand the ex-mayor stated that
he believed the present city solicitor
to be incom peteut. Questioned further
as to how long he had held such an
ODllllOn Vi nlLua WI Oullth G0Aus HOl
at least five years" That would make
the discovery of the said solicitors
alleged incompetency on the part of
Smith date back to 1915. AT this point
the city clerk was instructed to produce
the minute book for the year 1916, when
it was found that Smith mad voted that
year to make Hand solicitor for a term
of four years. According to his own
testimony, therefore, Smith helped to
foist an inefficient attorney upon an
enlightened community one year after
he knew of his potency. When
the prosecuting attorney insisted We
hemently that this witness tell whom
he consulted about the preparation of
these remarkable resolutions, Commits
sioner Smith very unwillingly testified
that he had received advice, suggestions
or instructions in this regard from three
persons: Lawyer Henry g. Chalmers,
supervising principal Of Wildwood
public schools; Attorney John Harris,
of Camden, and Attorney Ernest Lloyd,
of Cape May, Principal Chalmers is
said to have read some law, and some
persons may claim be has made a
special study of the Walsh act. Mr..
Chalmers was present at the hearing
last Saturday and seemed to take a
deep interest in the examination of the
witnesses. There is a joker in the
Walsh act which may fool a lot of
people. 1t reads thus: whenever it
may appear to be for the public good,
these designations may be changed"
(meaning the designations Of the differ
ent departments) but the clause men
toned is Observation-Disclosures as
it does not specify by whom the changes
shall be made; whether by the State
Legislature, the body responsible for
the creation of the Walsh act, orwheth-
er at the mere within of a couple OF
Commissioners whose judgment might
not be in with or respon-
sive to the wishes of their constituents.
1t is reasonable to suppose that only
the law creating body has the power
to make any fundamental alterations
or changes in the act under dissection.
When City Solicitor Hand was called
he was questioned by Attorney John
Harris mainly in regard to the amount
or rate of his sals ry and other methods
of compensation for official services.
Mr. Hand resented this prying into the
affairs of his department by the ques-
toner, and his memory was bad a num-
Der of times, as Harris was trying to
find out how much extra remuneration
the solicitor may have received from
time to time. Mr.. Hand seemed I'M
usually sensitive about the matter, was
more or less evasive, and even some of
his friends regretted that he had not
been more open and frank in his an
When appointed first as solic-
itor his salary was only $500 per year;
next term it was raised to $3.50 and
in 1920 to 81 900 a year; but by
his own admissions and by the evi-
dence given by Commissioner Smith,
Mr.. Hand at various times received
extra compensation. Just how much
was thus paid him wasnot ascertained.
said:"We always paid him extra
compensation whenever he presented
a BILL" He spoke these words in such
a manner as to indicate that the bills
presented by Attorney Hand at any
time were paid without question.
Lawyer Harris accused A. l.. Sher-
lock of accepting graft money last
summer to protect a gambler or
gamblers on the boardwalk. The sum
of $50 per week was specified as his
price for not arresting the alleged
offender or offenders. The acting chief
denied this accusation, and told John
Harris that the defense will be called
-