THE LEXOW COMMITTEE. N January 29, 1894, a resolution authorizing the appointment of a committee to investigate the Police Department in New York City was offered in the State Senate by Mr. Clarence Lexow, Republican Senator from the Sixteenth District. It was adopted by a unanimous vote on the following day. This action was taken in response to a general public demand for an investigation, and followed recommendations by the Chamber of Commerce of New York City in view of the charges affecting the police which had been made publicly by the Rev. Dr. Charles H. Parkhurst, pastor of the Madison Square Presbyterian Church, and President of the Society for the Prevention of Crime and the City Vigilance League. On January 31, 1894, a committee was appointed, composed of Clarence Lexow, Republican, Sixteenth District; Edmund O'Connor, Republican, Twentyfifth District; George W. Robertson, Republican, Fifteenth District; Charles T. Saxton, Republican, Twenty-sixth District; Cuthbert W. Pound, Republican, Twenty-ninth District; Daniel J. Bradley, Independent Democrat, Fifth District, and Jacob A. Cantor, Democrat, Fourteenth District. At the election, November 6th, Senator Saxton was elected Lieutenant-Governor, resigned his office as Senator, and retired from the Committee. By the original resolution, the Committee was authorized to investigate the Police Department only, but by an amendment authority was given to investigate the Excise Department, the Department of Charities and Correction, and the Police Justices. The Committee had authority to engage counsel, and a bill appropriating $25,000 for the expenses of the investigation was subsequently passed by the Legislature, but it was vetoed by the Governor, Roswell P. Flower, who filed the following memorandum with his veto : "If I thought the purpose behind this bill was an honest one, or that the interests of the State of New York would be benefited by the proposed investigation, I would give the measure my approval. But the bill has every appearance of being a misuse of public money and of legislative power for the manufacture of political capital or the division of political patronage. "These are plain words with which to characterize an act of the Legislature. They will not be relished by those to whom they apply. They will be criticised by those whose personal or political purposes they frustrate. I think the people understand plain language best, and when plain facts are handled they require plain treatment. The people are not easily deceived by polite phrases or by language which conceals rather than expresses thought. They like frankness best. "Periodically, when the party which is in a minority in New York City obtains control of the State Legislature, it makes that city the target of politi cal attack by legislative committees. Except for political objects, there is no good reason why that city should be singled out for legislative scrutiny. The same men who do the investigating in public will admit in private what every well-informed person knows is true-that no city in the State is so well governed as New York. No city in the State has a lower tax rate; no city has a better police regulation; no city has a lower ratio of crime; no city has better streets; no city has a better fire department; no city has better parks; no city has better schools; no city has a better health department; no city has a better credit ; no city is so comfortable a place to live in. That bad men sometimes get in ⚫ office there is true; that frauds upon the city treasury sometimes occur is true; that mal-administration sometimes happens is true; that ideal municipal government has not yet been attained there is true. But these things are as equally true of every city in the world; they are truer of other cities of our State than they are of New York. They are as unavoidable in government as in a private business. They are frequent always where official responsibility is fixed and party accountability is certain. They are faults of administration rather than of legislation, and, except in rare cases, can be cured by other means than legislation. They are evils with which the people of the locality are primarily concerned, and the people of the State only secondarily and remotely. Municipal pride and local self-government both demand that the attempt to remedy them should first be applied by the people of the vicinage, and that resort should be had to legislative interference only when the people are unable to help themselves. This municipal independence is cherished fondly by every city in the State. It is a matter of particularly jealous regard to the people of New York, for sad experience has demonstrated to them that the most corrupt periods of their city gov. ernment were those in which, for divisions of political plunder and patronage, the Legislature at Albany and municipal officials in New York combine to set at naught the will of the people, and by corrupt legislation turn the city over to political vultures. That result is the inevitable outcome of such dual gov ernment. "Investigations of the kind proposed by this bill do not, of course, betray their real purpose on their face. They are urged in the name of reform, and enlist in their support the services of many people of honest intentions who are deceived by the public professions of the investigators. But their real character is a matter of common knowledge and political record. If they were sincere attempts to improve municipal governments they would not be confined solely to Democratic cities; they would not almost invariably be demonstrated upon one great Democratic city. Nobody believes that municipal lessons cannot be learned at Syracuse and Rochester as well as at New York and Troy. Ask the citizens of Republican cities whether they suffer any municipal evils, and you will not get a negative answer; but ask them how they cure these evils, and they will not direct you to legislative investigating committees, for these they never see in their cities. Such instruments of reform are only used for Democratic strongholds. "But whether such efforts are directed against particular cities, or whether they are applied impartially, they are unjustifiable interference with local affairs, except as furnishing information as a basis for general legislation. This they seldom do; their results, if they have any in legislation, are, as a rule, merely supplementary efforts for a division or usurpation of municipal patronage when political threats have failed. The last experience which the city of New York had with such an investigation committee was in 1890, when the so-called Fassett Committee, professing to be inspired with the same zeal for reform which now animates the Senate committee of 1894, ransacked many of the municipal departments, and, as a result, left five printed volumes of testimony among the State archives, and one law, which the present Legislature has made haste substantially to repeal. Yet it was in 1890, and is now a matter of public notoriety, that this famous legislative committee, stirred with enthusiasm for municipal reform, was ready at any time to discontinue its investigation if the Mayor of New York would consent to appoint a Republican politician from Columbia County to the office of police commissioner. "It is such experiences as these which justify public suspicion of the sincerity of motive behind legislative investigations. The history of the past would of itself warrant such a suspicion. But in this case there is an additional ground of suspicion which is furnished by the actions of the legislative committee itself. At no time during the three months and more that it has been authorized to sit, has the committee seemed to possess the confidence of those who desired it to investigate municipal affairs in New York. At one time it was openly charged in the public press that the committee has already consummated a political deal with the local authorities whereby, in return for certain municipal offices for political friends, the committee would cease its investigations into local affairs. At other times other serious charges were made. In almost all cases these imputations against the good faith of the committee came not from its political enemies, but from those who were in political sympathy or alliance with it, or from that earnest body of citizens who honestly desired a thorough investigation, and who welcomed honest legislative assistance in their own efforts to secure good government. A committee whose earnestness and honesty of purpose are assailed by its own friends is hardly to be depended upon to conduct an impartial investigation. The assumption is fair that this effort at legislative investigation is inspired by no higher motives, and will be attended by no less partisan conduct, than was that of the Fassett Committee of 1890. "Under these circumstances it will hardly be claimed by fair-minded persons that the money of tax-payers of the State should be used to pay the campaign expenses of a political party. That, in substance, is all this bill does in its appropriation of $25,000 for counsel, expenses of Senators at hotels, etc., although incidentally it would provide summer vacations for rural Senators. In view of the experience of the past, $25,000 would not be nearly enough to satisfy the luxurious desires of a junketing committee or the avaricious appetites of counsel, or to accomplish the bribery of witnesses; the actual expense of the State would undoubtedly be much greater, and this consideration makes the objectionable character of the bill the more deserving of criticism. It must be remembered that the recent Legislature appointed no less than twenty-three different investigating committees, with power to employ counsel, take testimony and subpoena witnesses, and the expense of these is yet to be borne by State taxation, for the Legislature apparently was unwilling to call public attention to the meager results of these investigations by making appropriations at this session for the expenses thus incurred. When the prodigal waste of public money by these committees is brought to the attention of the tax-payers, the official recklessness which caused it will be generally condemned. That burden yet to be borne should not be added to by the appropriation provided by this bill. "I can not forbear calling attention, also, to the inconsistency of the Legislature in the employment of expensive counsel for these committees. The Legislature imperilled the annual appropriation bill for the support of the Government by insisting upon a 'rider,' to the effect that the Attorney-General should designate all counsel employed by the various State bureaus and commissions. If that principle was a good one to apply to these offices, it would seem to be a good one to apply to the twenty-three investigating committees, and especially to this New York investigating committee. "If there are people in New York who think their local government is not a good one, it is their privilege and their duty to make it good. The remedy should be the same there as in other cities of the State-by the election of good officers. The majority rules in this country, and if the majority wants good government it can always secure it through the fearless exercise of suffrage. But all change is not reform, and all investigation is not correction. Reform by legislative investigation can only come when legislative investigation is honest, thorough and impartial. But, under any circumstances, it is the unnatural, illogical remedy. The natural remedy is close at hand-watchful and loyal citizenship. That is the manly, straightforward, welcome remedy. The employment of that remedy makes a municipality self-reliant, proud and strong. It vindicates our theory of self-government, and builds our State and our Republic upon a sure foundation." To enable the Committee to carry on the investigation $17,500 was advanced by the New York Chamber of Commerce. This sum was expended in summoning witnesses, employing detectives, etc. The counsel to the Committee received no compensation, relying upon subsequent legislation for an appropriation to cover their fees. Appropriation bills were introduced in the Legislature in February, 1895, providing for the reimbursement of the Chamber of Commerce and the payment of counsel. The Hon. Joseph H. Choate was first selected as counsel to the Committee, but he declined to serve, and after some delay, through the aid of the Chamber of Commerce and Dr. Parkhurst, the Committee appointed John W. Goff and William A. Sutherland, of Rochester, N. Y., as counsel, It was soon apparent that Mr. Goff and Mr. Sutherland were not in harmony, and that Dr. Parkhurst and his colleagues would not co-operate with Mr. Sutherland, and for a time it was doubtful that Mr. Goff would act as the Committee's counsel. The investigation was begun on Friday, March 9th, the Committee sitting in one of the court rooms of the County Court House in New York City. Mr. Sutherland was present as counsel, having agreed to proceed with only one. branch of the inquiry, which concerned the interference by the police with the elections in the city. The Legislature being in session, the investigation proceeded on Friday and Saturday of each week, for a few weeks. Mr. Sutherland examined many witnesses, and was assisted by Mr. Henry Grasse, of New York. Mr. Goff did not appear at the sittings of the Committee. During the investigation the Police Department was represented by Mr. De Lancey Nicoll as counsel. It was made plain that the New York police had persistently interfered with. the rights of voters in some parts of the city, and had permitted gross violations of the election law by Tammany thugs and repeaters. It was shown, by the testimony of Morris Tekulsky, president of the Liquor Dealers' Association, who had been elected a delegate to the State Constitutional Convention, that there had been an arrangement between Tammany Hall and the liquor dealers, by which the dealers had been permitted to violate the law forbidding the sale of liquors on Sundays in consideration for contributions to the Tammany campaign fund. James J. Martin, president of the Police Board, was examined on April 6th and on the following days, and made damaging admissions as to the influence which Tammany politicians exerted over the police in the elections. It was shown that many policemen were members of Tammany clubs. Mr. Goff appeared as counsel for the Committee on April 13th, and claimed that he had not been allowed to procure a subpoena for a police captain who was about to depart for Europe. On April 14th the Committee decided to adjourn until the Legislature had concluded its session. Mr. Sutherland did not again take an active part in the investigation. On May 21st, Mr. Goff, assisted by Mr. Frank Moss, counsel for the Society for the Prevention of Crime, and Mr. W. Travers Jerome, began the examination of witnesses in the investigation. Mr. Rastus S. Ransom appeared with Mr. Nicoll as counsel for the Police Department. Police Commissioner John McClave occupied the witness chair for several days, and a searching examination was made of his personal and business acHis son-in-law, Gideon Granger, charged him with having received money for the appointment and promotion of policemen, and Mr. McClave broke down and became dangerously ill. He subsequently resigned his office as Police Commissioner and left the city. Charles Grant, his secretary, also implicated in the bargaining for appointments and promotions, also resigned and left the city. It was testified by a number of witnesses that they had kept houses of illfame in the city, and had paid bribes to police captains and ward policemen for protection and permission to continue their nefarious business. The investigation on that line of the inquiry was continued until the end of June, when the Committee took an adjournment for the summer months. Upon the adjournment of the Committee, the Police Commissioners proceeded with the trials of members of the police force who had been implicated by the testimony before the Committee. Police Captains Michael Doherty, William S. Devery, Adam A. Cross and John T. Stephenson, and a number of sergeants and wardmen, were found guilty and dismissed from the force. The office of wardman was also abolished by the Commissioners. The dismissed captains were afterward indicted, and Captain Stephenson was convicted of bribery and sentenced by Judge Ingraham to three years and nine months in State prison and to pay a fine of $1,000. A stay of execution was subsequently obtained pending an appeal. On September 10th, the Committee resumed the investigation for a few days. It was shown that "green-goods" swindlers in the city had been protected by the police in several precincts, and that large sums of money had been paid by the swindlers to police captains, and to Central Office detectives. |