From the daily press a few accounts are culled, and added by way of appendix, as to the perpetration of crime and the habits of the police in connection with it.

The Baxter Committee unearthed the following account of the degree of protection afforded to citizens by police officers, and the easy-going indifference with which the Chief of Police regarded the affair when it was first called to his attention.

On the night of March 3d ult. a woman returning from a drug store was stopped by two detectives and charged with soliciting men upon the streets. She denied this offensive charge, told where she had been and where returning, and showed a bottle of medicine she carried as confirmatory of her statements. This happened about 8:45 o’clock. She was then within twenty feet of the entrance to the house in which she lived. Notwithstanding her denial, the officers went to the house with her. One of them then said, “I’m an officer; open this door!” Another woman with whom the arrested woman was boarding asked, “What is the matter?” One of the officers replied, “This woman was on the street soliciting,” to which the boarding house keeper replied, “You are mistaken.” “Well,” said the officer, “if you want to stop her give me $15,” and the reply was, “She has no money to give you or to any one.” The boarding house keeper, thinking the men were common thieves, then whispered to the accused woman, “Go with them and I will follow you.” The officers took their woman to a corner and into a saloon, where they compelled her to give up a pair of diamond earrings for ten dollars which were handed to her by the bartender. The boarding house woman followed, and prevented the detectives from obtaining the ten dollars, but finally they grabbed the bill from the accused woman’s hands. The women were then released and returned to their home. Taking a sealskin sack with them they returned to the saloon, and were handed the diamond earrings, but not without leaving the sack in their stead. The women saw the detectives return, and drink at the bar, paying for their tipple with the money they had snatched from the hand of the one.

While the parties were wrangling on the street a police sergeant and two officers in uniform passed. One of the women cried out, “Here are two men robbing this woman!” The sergeant replied, after observation, “I have got nothing to do with this.” One of the women asked, “What are you for?” Then the sergeant, having discovered the men were detectives, said to one of them, “They are all right. Get what you can.” The sergeant then left.

The women now demanded that the detectives show their badges of authority. They were shown. Demand was then made that a patrol wagon should be called. This was denied, but accidentally one came along the street returning to its station. When the accused woman caught sight of it she fainted. The boarding house keeper raised such commotion that one of the detectives said, “For God’s sake, shut that woman’s mouth up or she will make us trouble!” They then ran away.The next day the boarding house woman called on the Chief of Police and told the whole story. He referred her to the Lieutenant at the station of the precinct in which the indignity occurred. To him the entire facts were given, and written down by the desk sergeant. The men were there identified.

On the following day one of the detectives went to the women’s house, accompanied by a brother-in-law, whose wife was a personal friend of the boarding house woman. The detective had a copy of the woman’s statement as she had made it at the police station. He begged for mercy, crying, “he had nothing to say for himself.” He piteously pleaded he had a mother in the hospital, a mother-in-law who was dying, and three small children to support. Suggestions were made, and the woman’s feelings worked upon so that she was induced to leave the city.

Meanwhile the boarding house keeper made a statement at another police station, in which she suppressed the facts as to the diamonds and the money. She was asked to appear before the police trial board, and refused. Thereupon the charges against the detectives were dismissed.

It developed before the Baxter Committee that the Chief of Police had been told all the facts. The papers got hold of an account of the affair, and the Chief called upon the boarding house keeper. In the course of his conversation, this woman trying to protect the officers through her aroused sympathy, was asked by the Chief, “What about those diamond earrings and sealskin sack?” The woman answered, “If you don’t know, I don’t.” He then asked, “Didn’t you tell that to me?” She answered, “If you can’t remember, I can’t.” She was then questioned by the Chief whether these officers were begging her to quash the matter, whether they were offering her money for that purpose, etc.

The Chief stated the reporters were hounding him to death, when the woman asked him “why he did not show her statement?” He replied it was locked up, “if they want any information they can get it from you.”

One of the men is still a member of the detective force. The other resigned and went into the saloon business, and appeared before the committee entering a partial denial of the woman’s story. The knowledge of the Chief of all the facts was fully shown before the committee. Notwithstanding this, he does not appear to have taken any steps to keep the matter before the trial board, or to institute any other proceedings to bring these detectives to punishment.

This is not at all surprising in the face of the fact that this officer is, as is shown in court proceedings, a veritable czar in his own estimation.

The following account is taken from the Chicago Democrat of May 27th ult. A similar report of the case is contained in the other dailies.

“Judge Brentano held, this morning, that Chief of Police K. did not have the power to have a man restrained of his liberty at his (K.’s) request. The decision was brought about on the hearing of a petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by Attorney F. A. D. for the release of Edward H., who was arrested last Monday morning at Twenty-ninth and State streets on account of the shooting of Officer James S., which resulted from an attempt of a number of officers to enforce the disarmament-of-colored-people policy of the Chief of Police.

“The man had been confined in the county jail, and the return of the sheriff, when the prisoner was brought into court, read: ‘Edward H. has been detained in my custody at the request of J. K., Chief of Police for the city of Chicago.’ Judge Brentano evinced great displeasure when he read the return of the illegal detainment of the prisoner. ‘A man,’ said the court, ‘cannot be held at the simple request of K. or any other person. K.’s word is not sufficient to keep any man in custody. I won’t tolerate any such actions, for if the man was guilty of shooting an officer, or committing any other crime, Mr. K. has had sufficient time and knows how to take the proper steps to punish the prisoner.’

“‘The court certainly would not allow this man his liberty when he is under arrest and has not been booked or complained against before a justice of the peace owing to the neglect perhaps of such a high official as Mr. K.,’ remarked the assistant city prosecuting attorney.“‘I certainly would, regardless of whose neglect it is,’ said the court. ‘The prisoner is discharged.’

“No witnesses were heard, the prisoner being discharged on the ground that it was shown in the return of the sheriff that H. was simply being detained to please Chief K.

“Attorney D. had witnesses in court to show that the prisoner had been beaten and injured by the police who arrested him, both before his arrival at the Twenty-second street station and after he was installed in a cell at that place.

“Prisoners who were in the station at the time H. was taken there were in court to testify that the officers who had charge of the prisoner beat and struck him in such a manner that they thought H. would be killed.

“The prisoner’s face and condition in court were the best evidences of the treatment he had received.

“Both of his eyes are closed, swollen and discolored to such a degree that they stand out in bold contrast to his own color, which is a dark copper. Two gashes, each six inches long, on the top and front of his head bear testimony to the means said to have been used by the officers in carrying out their chief’s new disarmament policy.

“It is also alleged that the prisoner was confined in a dungeon cell while he was in the custody of the Twenty-second street police.

“After his discharge the injured man had to be helped to the elevator by two of his friends because of his injuries. The names of the officers who assaulted the prisoner were not obtainable, for the reason that the prisoner had not been booked and the officer making the arrest had not signed any complaint.”

Two observations will arrest the attention of the average reader. They must naturally occur to his mind. First, What sort of a Sheriff is he who will keep a man in jail, without a proper commitment? Second, What kind of a lawyer must he be who will suggest to a court the propriety of depriving a man of his liberty, without due process of law, at the mere request of such “a high official” as the Chief of Police?The return of the Sheriff in this case to the writ of habeas corpus should have been treated as a contempt of court.

Pool rooms are operating as of yore. The Daily News of May 27 ult. contains the following, viz.:

“The saloon of J. H. D. at E. and N. C. streets was converted into a pool room yesterday afternoon at the time the ticker began to record the winning horses in the races at the various tracks throughout the country. A dozen men assembled in the barroom where the ticker was located and placed bets, while a number of women sat in the back rooms and also chanced their money.

“The women’s wants were looked after by a young man who answered to the name of ‘Dude.’ After each race he carried them the slip printed from the ticker showing the winners and handed their money to those who had been lucky. During the interval between the races the schedule of the next race was discussed by all who intended to place money, and ‘Dude’ would come from the rear room with a handful of bills to place on some race by the women.“On the inside money was passed over the bar indiscriminately and a clerk was busy keeping track of those who placed bets. From the conversation which passed between those in the barroom one might judge that he was in a genuine poolroom, where the interference of police was not to be feared.

“All the men present merely gave their initials when they risked their money, and these were carefully preserved on paper until the ticker decided whether the money was lost or won. The man who passed as ‘Dude’ had charge of the pools apparently, and all the money which was placed went through his hands. After taking it he would call the initials of the man placing the bet and then hand the money to the man behind the bar.”

The ticker was presided over by a large, smooth-faced, well-dressed man and anything which came over the machine which was not a report on a horse race was of no interest. The reports of the score at the various ball games were soon shown the waste basket, while the lists of the horses which earned places were preserved and hung on hooks after they had been carefully inspected by those present.

A number of stylishly dressed women were seen to enter the place, and, according to information furnished the Daily News, women have been in the habit of visiting the D. saloon for some time for the purpose of placing bets on the races. Two young women came from the direction of L. S. avenue about 4 o’clock and entered the place apparently as though it was nothing new to them.

“The ‘ladies’ entrance’ is on the E. street side. The rooms for women are arranged in the east half of the double-flat building on E. street, while the saloon faces on C. street.

“J. H. D., who conducts the place, came in yesterday afternoon while the betting was at its height, and, bedecked in diamonds, walked leisurely behind the bar and, picking up a Racing Form, turned to the ‘boys’ and asked how ‘things were going.’ He was told the winners in the races which had been reported during his absence and seemed pleased with what was told him.

“The saloon is known as ‘D.’s O. P. C.,’ and has been conducted at this place for the past five or six years. The license for the place is in the name of Mrs. J. H. D. It is said that D. was formerly in the saloon business here, but sold out and went to New York, where he put on a vaudeville show and sunk several thousand dollars trying to make it pay. He finally failed, it is said, and came back to Chicago and reopened his saloon.

“At the Chicago avenue police station nothing was known apparently of the gambling at the D. saloon on the races. Capt. R. said that he told a couple of his men some time ago to watch the place, but he said they had reported nothing irregular. The captain seemed surprised when he heard of how affairs were, and Inspector H. was apparently very indignant at the thought that anything of the sort was going on in his district. He at once gave the captain orders to send a couple of men to the place and if anything was found to be going on there to stop it.”

The result of the visit of the Inspector’s officers is thus stated in the Tribune of May 28th ult. Its headline is suggestive, in view of the particulars given in the Daily News of the occurrences by its reporter.

“REPORT NO GAMBLING.”

“A report that a poolroom was being conducted in the saloon of J. H. D., E. and N. C. Streets, was investigated yesterday by Detectives B. and R., who visited the place at 3 p. m., and reported no gambling existed there. It was said that during Friday afternoon bets on the races were accepted in the saloon and that men as well as women frequented the place.”

The newspapers contribute evidences of the absence of crime in Chicago, and of police operations as follows, viz.:

From the Daily News May 27th ult.

“Officers from the Attrill street police station are scouring the west side in an effort to apprehend burglars who created havoc in the vicinity of Humboldt Park boulevard and Western avenue during the early morning hours of yesterday. Among the residences visited by the night prowlers were those of: (Here follows a list of eleven burglaries.)

“In addition burglaries at the following places in the immediate neighborhood have been committed within the last few days: (Here follows a list of four burglaries.)

“One of the burglars rode from house to house on a bicycle. Two revolvers dropped by the visitors were found in the yard of the E. residence. The territory suffering the nightly raids is embraced in the suburb of Maplewood, and citizens have armed themselves in their own defense, asserting that police uniforms have not been seen on the streets concerned for weeks.”

From the Democrat May 27th ult.:

“Burglars forced an entrance into the store of the Guarantee Clothing Company, State street, last night and stole nearly $1,000 worth of goods.

“Apparently the thieves took their time, and the police say they must have used a wagon in removing the goods. Persons living in the flats above heard nothing unusual during the night, and the police are unable to comprehend how the thieves could remove the great amount of property without attracting attention.

“This morning a clerk opened the front door of the store. It looked as though a small cyclone had passed through the establishment.”This burglary took place between two police stations, from neither of which it was far distant. It is probable that if one officer had gone over his beat just once that night, its perpetrators would have been caught in the act. Some neighboring saloon was, perhaps, more needful of police protection!

Some tremendous effort is being made, however, to suppress policy shops and clean out all night saloons! Witness the following, viz.:

From papers of May 27th ult.:

“Detectives D. and D. of Chief K.’s office raided a policy shop in the basement of the building at 6 Washington street last night and destroyed the fixtures of the place and confiscated the sheets, records and other paraphernalia.

“The shop was in a small room under the sidewalk and was reached through a barber shop. S. H., the police say, was the agent in charge of the place, and represented the O. R. & G. company of Fort Erie, Canada. No arrests were made, but Chief K. says the place will remain closed.”

“Two hours after midnight Sergt. M. and Officers M., O’B., H. and F., from the Harrison street police station, raided the C. L. saloon at State street, arresting sixty inmates. The majority of these were boys. There was one man with gray hair and wrinkled face.

“Shortly before the police court convened at 9 o’clock the entire crowd was marched into Inspector H.’s office and from there to the courtroom, where the cases were disposed of by Justice M. Every sort of a plea generally used in court was brought into play by the defendants. Some cases were dismissed, while other prisoners were fined $25 and $50. The police claim about half of those arrested were criminals.

“The arrests were made because of the large number of complaints against the saloon.”

The raid on the policy shop belongs to the spasmodic line of operations of the police. Fifty of them could be made if some mysterious reason did not exist why they are not made.

The saloon referred to belongs to the all night class, and is one of the most notorious of the kind. It has been protected in the past, and still would be if it were not for the fact that “a large number of complaints” have been made against it. These are not new to the police. They have been made before, but something must be done for appearance sake while the Baxter Committee continues its probing! That this place was a resort for criminals is not a recent discovery by the police. They always knew it.

To cull the press for proofs of the truth of the charges made in the foregoing pages, would result, in a few days, in the reproduction of a mass of evidence on the total inefficiency of the police force. Such as are here given are examples of the many the scissors could find.

The reader can multiply them, in his mind, ten fold in a week’s time, and then reach a result far short of the facts.

The whole story of the alliance between the police, the saloons and the justices is told in the following cartoon taken from the Daily News of June 23, 1899.

CAUGHT COMING AND GOING.

THE DIVEKEEPER (to Harrison street police officer)—“I’ve got my dollar a head out of them. Now you can drive them into court and give the justice his chance.”