Maryland State Archives

Baltimore City Police
msa_s1894_02-0120

   Enlarge and print image (906K)     

 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS   NEXT >>
clear space clear space clear space white space


 

Maryland State Archives

Baltimore City Police
msa_s1894_02-0120

   Enlarge and print image (906K)     

 Jump to  
  << PREVIOUS   NEXT >>
m Officer Frederick Isaacson, Eastern District, was before the Board charged with neglect of duty by having been in the office of the American Ice Company, 2351 Boston street, on other than police business from 1.25 to 1.35 A.M., October 25,1902. The case was partially heard and continued until Wednesday, October 29th. , to obtain the statement of V/illian F. McDaniels. Case of Officer George A.Harkins, N,W.District. The Board acquitted Officer George A.Harkins, northwestern District, of the charge upon which he was tried October 24,1902, and as recorded in the proceedings of that date. Complaint - S.E.Nicholson. State Superintendent Anti-Saloon League. In the matter of complaint preferred by the Anti-Saloon League, in reference to the action of Captain of Detectives Pum- phrey and Detective Hammersla, in testifying for the defense in a case of violation of the liquor law at Belair, as referred to in the proceedings of September 22,26, October 1,3,6,13 and 24, 1902, a communication, as follows, was received from the Rev. S.E.Nicholson, State Superintendent Anti-Saloon League:- "Baltimore, Md. October 27, 1902. Hon. Board of Police Commissioners, Baltimore City. My Dear Sirs:- I do not care to take the time of the Board this morning by asking for an interview, but I write to ask for the copies of the letters to which Captain Pumphrey referred in his last answers, and which were received from Captain Titus, of New York. They seem to be a part of his answers to the questions, and I suppose,therefore, we are rightly entitled to them. I ask also that you furnish me with two complaining blanks this morning. Very cordially yours, (signed) S.E.NICHOLSON, State Supt. Anti-Saloon League." In as much as the letters to which Mr. Nicholson refers in his letter, as above, addressed to Captain Pumphrey, and one of which is marked "Confidential", Captain Pumphrey was called before the Board to ascertain if he, Captain Pumphrey, had any objection to Mr. Nicholson having copies of the said letters. Captain Pumphrey expressed himself as objecting to Mr. Nlch-