Collections from liquor dealers. The spoils shared with higher officers. A. The policy shops all there in the precinct and in the upper part of the city are under a man by the name of Parker, and if I remember right, Parker came to the station-house and saw me, and told me how many shops he had in the precinct; that was all; and he was introduced to Gannon, and Gannon did the rest. Q. Were there any other sources of collecting except the policy shops in that precinct? A. There was the liquor dealers' organization there, Bohemian Liquor Dealers' organization; they contributed about $80 a month, I think. Q. Now, of the money that was paid by the policy shops and of the money that was paid by the Bohemian Liquor Dealers' association, how much did you receive? A. Well, all but 20 per cent. Q. That was the recognized thing in all the precincts? A. I guess so Q. So far as you know? A. Yes, sir. Q. About what was the sum that you collected there every month, after paying Gannon his 20 per cent; there were 10 policy shops, that would be $200? A. Yes. Q. Then there was $80 from the Bohemian Liquor Dealers' association? A. Take 20 per cent off that. Q. Now, while you were captain of that precinct and in receipt of that money every month, did you give any part of that money or of any money to any other police official? A. I did. Q. You did? A. Yes, sir. Q. To whom did you give it? A. Inspector Williams. Q. To Inspector Williams; was Williams the inspector of that inspection district? A. Yes, sir. Q. That precinct was within his jurisdiction as inspector? A. Yes, sir. Q. Will you please tell us how it was first arranged between Williams and yourself that you should give him a portion of the money collected by you in that precinct? A. I succeeded Captain Gunner, who had been retired; the first day I went to the stationhouse Captain Gunner came in to get some things belonging to himself in the office; Captain Gunner and I had a confidential talk as to how much he had given to the inspector. Q. Just tell us the talk, if you please, captain. A. I asked Captain Gunner how much did you give to the inspector; because I don't want to give any less than you have given, and Captain Gunner told me what he had given. Q. What did he say; how much? A. He said he sent $50, sometimes $75, just as he felt; between $50 and $75 a month to the inspector. He told me that he had put this money in an envelope and given it to Campbell, that Campbell had given it to Sergeant Price in Inspector Williams' office. money was Q. Sergeant Price who is now captain? A. Yes, sir; I know How the him; Williams didn't think that I needed any intermediate per- delivered. son; I went directly to him and handed him the money. Q. How much did you hand him, captain? A. Fifty dollars. A. No, sir. Q. Did he say anything to you? A. No, sir. Q. Placed it in an envelope? A. Yes, sir. Q. And handed it to him without a word? A. Yes, sir. Q. In his office at headquarters? A. In his office at headquarters. Q. Now, captain, we want to have you place upon the record here why you gave part of the money collected by you to Williams as the inspector. A. Well, it was in Williams' power to send men up there to raid those policy shops over my head; to prevent him from doing that; of course, upon consideration of receiving that sum of money every month he wouldn't do it. Q. So that in order to enable you to derive the profit or advantage from these policy shops doing business in that precinct you divided the proceeds with your superior officer, the inspector? A. Yes, sir. Q. Now we have it, that this money was paid to him in consideration that he would allow you to permit these policy shops to continue in their business in violation of law? A. Yes, sir. Why the shared. money was The payments made in bills. Violations of the law. The liquor dealers and Tammany. Q. This you know, that you gave to Williams every month a part of the identical money that was contributed by these policy shops and liquor dealers? A. Yes, sir. Q. You didn't change the money? A. Yes, sir. Q. Was it an understood thing in the department that the money should go in bills wherever money was to be paid in the manner that you have prescribed? A. Oh, yes. Q. In bills? A. Yes. Q. So as to leave no trace? A. Yes, sir. Q. Speaking of the Bohemian liquor dealers, is it a fact that the money they paid was paid in consideration of their being allowed to sell on Sundays? A. Yes, sir. Q. When you went to Eighty-eighth Street, what collections were made in that precinct? A. There was some policy shops there and some pool-rooms; that was all. Q. How much did they pay? A. Well, altogether about $900 a month; about $800 a month. Q. Could you give us the number of policy shops, because we want to be as exact as we can; can you give us the number of policy shops and the number of pool-rooms that were in that precinct? A. I think there were about 10 policy shops and three pool rooms. Q. Can you tell us how much these pool-rooms pay? A. Two hundred dollars a month. Q. How about the liquor dealers? A. Didn't touch them. Q. Was it not an understood thing then that the liquor dealers had made their peace with the police through Tammany Hall? A. Yes, sir. Q. And that instead of paying directly to the police they should pay Tammany Hall; was not that the understood thing? A. Well, that was the understood I don't know whether that was really so or not, that is what I heard. Q. That is your reason for your non-interference? A. Yes, sir. CHAPTER XXVII THE ORGANIZATION OF MUNICIPAL GOVERNMENT 198. Home Rule for Cities THE constant interference of the state legislature in municipal affairs has been accompanied by many palpable evils and has led to a demand on the part of some reformers for "municipal home rule" - a condition more easily advocated in the abstract than defined in the concrete. In the last constitutional convention of New York Mr. Root made an argument against allowing cities too great an independence from central control: state-wide social and unity. I entered the chamber while that gentleman was referring to Cities and the free cities of the middle ages, and I listened with great interest and satisfaction to the remarks which he made upon that subject economic and those which followed. . . . But, sir, let me ask the gentleman if, filled with natural and proper pride in the great city which he represents, he has not taken a somewhat one-sided view of the relations of municipalities of the State to the State? The free cities of the middle ages stood by themselves, governed by themselves, but they undertook to exercise no power of governmental rights over others, and acknowledged no duties to others. The great cities of the State of New York can build no walls around their borders. They seclude themselves in the midst of no barriers between themselves and their fellow-citizens of the State. They undertake to furnish to us, and acknowledge their obligations under the law to all of us from Montauk to the State line in Lake Erie, the great market, the great centre of education, of recreation, of business, the centre commercially, financially, politically, around which revolve, and from which throb and pulse the life currents of a State which is a political, social, commercial and financial unit. Cities and state and national politics. Now, sir, the city which the gentleman represents undertakes to cast votes which will determine who shall be the presidential electors of the State of New York, to cast votes which shall determine who shall be the Governor of the State of New York, to send representatives to the Senate and Assembly, whose votes will outweigh those of any less number from any other part of the State of New York, in determining the policy and the law for the whole State. That city cannot cut herself off from the rest of the State. That city cannot put herself in the position of a free city of the middle ages with a wall around her, governing herself exclusively; or if she does, she secedes from the State and becomes a city by herself. And against that or any amendment or law which provides for that, I rise now to protest. No, sir. The cities of the State, while properly claiming that they should be exempted from undue interference with their private affairs, nevertheless must admit the right of the people of a State to which they belong and to which they owe allegiance, equally with the smallest hamlet, to see that the great bureau of police in which every citizen is interested, that the exercise of the elective franchise in which every citizen is interested remain under the domination of the law of the State. One is correlative to the other. The two must go hand in hand, and I understand, sir, that the attempt of this committee has been to put into the measure which they have reported, on the one hand, a just exemption from undue interference in purely private and local matters in the city, and on the other hand, the assertion and the protection of the higher right of the people of the great State of New York to preserve her autonomy, her political independence, her political unity and the rights of all her people by control over those governmental functions in the city, which are the proper province of the general government. 199. Popular Charter Drafting California, in common with some other states, has attempted to solve the vexed question of municipal home rule by establish |