Evening star., 1935-11-06
Oehnlann

Continued From First Pago)
associated with Seal in the prosecu-
ton
Wheatley's announcement of the
decision covered each of the charges
in some detail.
After reviewing the conflicting tes-
timony of Col. Oehmann and Inspector
j. j. Kimball in the first case. the
granting of razing permit without
fee, Wheatley declared the weight of
evidence in favor of the former. I'VE
think the whole charge grossly mag
nified . too little to be digniied
''' not proved"
Packing the jury"
Describing the second charge as
tantamount TO packing the jury" and
admitting its seriousness, if true,
Wheatley continued: There is not a
scintilla of evidence to support the
charge that he knowingly did this"
This involved appointment of an in
terested party to a board Of survey.
In the third count that a permit 10
repair had been issued for a building
previously condemned, Mr.. Wheatley
reviewed the steps by which Col Och
mann had changed his mind about
the structure and declared a public
officer need not ''be adamant .
no culpabiiity."
We take different view of the
fourth charge" he said. We think
the answer they were too busy to
serve fire escape notice not an an
swer at ALL No evidence To
connect Col. Oehmann directly with
failure. 1t was inexcusable. The find
ing. however. does not require dis
clpllnary measures, but rather cor
rective."
The fifth charge he termed a Dor
oer-llne case not proved"
The sixth charge was similarly cat
alogued and declared question of
Interpretation of regulations I.
we're inclined to believe conclusions
correct no warrant for dis
ciplinary action"
The seventh, he said. could be re-
duced to consideration of single
wall. and was mot proved" in the
form submitted.
In the eighth, involving a permit to
replace a wood roof with one of con-
crete, Wheatley said he believed Col.
Oehmann entitled to rely on prece-
gent cited by defense and declared
the charge mot proved"
Ninth Charge vindication.
Most complete vindication of the
defendant came on the ninth charge
that involving an evacuation order for
the Logan Hotel. If Col Oehmann
mad used his office to aid the tenant,
Mr.. Wheatley explained, he would
nave been guilty of gross misconduct.
II, one the other hand, he believed
the building unsafe and had not or
dered its evacuation he would have
been derelict in his duty. Citing re-
ports and testimony of those who de-
clared such condition to exist, Mr..
Wheatley said:
I'VE believe the building was unsafe
and we believe on this charge Col.
Oehmann should be commended
rather than condemned"
In a short summation Mr.. Wheat
ley referred to the good character of
many of the witnesses for the de-
fense On the other side. he referred
to man who would not tell us who
acted with him in preparing his
charges, who refuses to submit proof
and who comes out with a f1y-by-
night excuse that his charges were
directed against two persons"
Explaining that his verbal report
represented the findings of both
himself and Commissioner Allen, Mr..
Wheatley said that a stenographic
copy of it will be forwarded to Com
missioners Melvin E. Hazen and Lieut..
Col. Dan I. Sultan for such action as
they see fit. No further recommen-
dations will be made by the special
hearing board, MIR. Wheatley said.