Evening star., 1946-04-25
ill
Continued From First Page.)

under the Commissioners. The pro-
posed amendment, it was indicated,
constitutes virtual rewriting of the
reorganization bill to establish both
welfare department and a correc-
tions department.
In firing Mr.. Gill. the city heads
denied a last-minute request from
John J. Wilson, attorney for Mr..
Gill, to postpone action until Mon
day to give him time to file a memo
randum in connection with the find
ings of the three-man trial board
which recommended his removal.
The dismissal followed the lengthy
battle of the 56-year-old penologist
for the job he held for year and
a half until his suspension by the
Welfare Board on December 6, fol-
lowing the flve-man Jail break of
November "a.
The Commissioners order of dis
missal approved lin all respects" the
findings of the three-man trial board
they appointed on recommendation
of Chief Judge Bolitha Laws of Dis
trid Court to hear the case. The
board consisted of Walter M. Bas-
tian and Francis w. Hill, jr., law
yers, and Alfred H. Lawson, banker.
The Commissioners also ruled that
the period of Mr.. Gill's suspension
from December 6 to date was to be
without pay.
Removal of the general superin-
tendent was also called for by the
House subcommittee which recently
investigated jail administration after
the escape of Joseph Medley and
Earl Mcfarland from the death
house.
Gill Issues Statement.
Mr.. Gill's statement, issued last
night a few hours after the Com
missioners upheld the recommended
tions of the board of inquiry for
his dimissal, is given as follows:
Il shall of course, appeal to the
Civil Service Commission. Rule II
of civil service regulations guaran-
tees every civil service employe sub
ject to dismissal the right to reply
in writing to any charges made
against him. 1t was clearly under
stood that the hearings before the
board of inquiry were in lieu of a
statement of specifications, but at
no time did I or my counsel wave
my rights ito reply in writing to
the charges and specifications, once
they were presented in sufficient
detail to afford me an adequate op-
portunity to reply in writing. In
fact, in my letter to the Board of
Commissioners, February IA. 1916. I
specifically reserved the right to
submit written reply after I had
heard the evidence relied upon by
the Board of Welfare in support
of the allegations as submitted to
the board of inquiry.
"It was not until the board of
inquiry made its report on Monday
that I finally knew what the real
charges and specifications against
me were. These were reduced to
six with specific details given as to
why the board of inquiry (Which
was merely advisory thought these
six charges sufficient to warrant
consideration of dismissal. I then
asked for opportunity to file a
statement in writing in reply to
these six charges as guaranteed
under Civil Service regulations. This
the Commissioners denied me and in
so doing deprived me of my rights
under civil service rules
At the District Building today
officials saw little chance of an
appeal being granted by the Civil
Service Commission from the de-
cision of the city heads.
Il am certain the law has been
complied with" Commissioner Young
commented.