The Washington times., 1922-04-24
APOLOGY IS
DEMANDED
BY LAWYER
Continued from First Pagel

(Conunued from trSt HdSeJ
says the brief and. "if It was the
intention of the Trial Board to try
her as to her conception of discip-
line, why did not the charges so
state?"
"In stating its conception of dis
cipline in the police department and
finding Lieut.. Van Winkle ignorant
thereof, and making no comment on
the majors ignorance in this regard,
the trial board would seem to have
strained at a gnat and swallowed a
very NANCY dromedary," says the
brief.
Lieut.. Van winkle was not asked
by any person, nor did she give
testimony as to what her conception
OF her duty In this regard was, ex.
cept to say that she recognized her
duty to give implicit obedience to
the orders of the major and superin-
tendent. This would seem to be in
accord with the majors own testi-
mony.
Disregarded Evidence.
why. therefore, the trial board
should not only have disregarded the
only testimony on this point, but, in
addition thereto, have created by its
own intellectual fiat an alleged rule
of discipline that neither according
to the evidence nor, in fact, exists
IN the police department. quite
battles our diminutive mental
powers.
"The only explanation would seem
to lie either in desire to cast asper-
sion upon a competent officer, even
II IT was necessary to go beyond the
record so to do, or that the board,
with a transcendent impudence has
Rrrogated to itself the duty OF pre-
scribing q principle OF discipline not
found in the manual or in the prac-
tice of the department."
Assails Trial Board.
such action would evidence
plentitude Of gall OF the purest ray
serene. Methlnks the trial board
might well be furnished q perambu.
lator to cradle the innocent found.
ling OF its fruitful Imagination"
To say that Lieutenant Van
Winkle has not a proper concep-
tion OF the cardinal principles Of
discipline in the police department,
the trial board is, to say the least,
making criticism, or, at the most,
Is finding her guilty OF some
offense," says the brief. THE trial
board was not appointed for the
purpose of criticising. II could find
her guilty of no offense not charged.
In either event, the board has ex-
ceeded its Jurisdiction"
Ridicules Finding.
Imagine for a moment a Jury,
having tried a defendant charged
with murder, bringing in a verdict
OF not guilty, but saying In addi-
ton thereto that II was convinced
that the defendant did not treat his
wife properly.
with equal propriety the trial
board in this instance could have
animadverted upon the style OF
Lieutenant Van Wrinkles coiffure,
or to have opined as to the pro-
priety OF having a policewoman at
all.
When the trial board is called
upon to hear testimony upon proper
charges and specifications as TO
whether or not Lieutenant Van
Winkle is acquainted with the
proper conception OF discipline will,
we believe, be ample time for IL TO
air its views upon such a subject. I"
Mr.. Whiteford declares that the
finding of the board indicated that
they preferred to knife her in the
back in this fashion, while publicly
proclaiming her innocence"
The brief quotes the testimony Of
Inspector Evans, purported to have
been the complainant in the case,
He testified: II think that Lieuten.
ant Van Winkle has been consci-
entious and honest in everything
she has ever done in the police de-