NEWS: Charles S. Downs, January 15, 1916, Altoona, Blair County, PA Contributed for use in the USGenWeb Archives by Ruth Curfman <rcurfman@chartermi.net> USGENWEB ARCHIVES (tm) NOTICE All documents placed in the USGenWeb Archives remain the property of the contributors, who retain publication rights in accordance with US Copyright Laws and Regulations. In keeping with our policy of providing free information on the Internet, these documents may be used by anyone for their personal research. They may be used by non-commercial entities so long as all notices and submitter information are included. These electronic pages may NOT be reproduced in any format for profit. Any other use, including copying files to other sites, requires permission from the contributors PRIOR to uploading to the other sites. The submitter has given permission to the USGenWeb Archives to store the file permanently for free access. http://www.usgwarchives.net/pa/blair/ ___________________________________________________________ Altoona Tribune, Saturday morning, January 15, 1916 City Electrician Downs Vindicated Evidence of Carelessness on Part of Official and Inspector Falls Flat The Reasons Quite Plain Mr. Dublin and Mr. Bratton, Chief Witness Against Mr. Downs Failed to Make Case Charges are Dismissed City Electrician Charles S. Downs and his inspector, J. S. Hudson, were vindicated of the charges of carelessness, inattention to their duties, discrimination, etc., in the discharge of their duties preferred against them by James W. Dublin, at a meeting of the city commissioners yesterday afternoon. While under the provision of the Clark act, definite action can only be taken at a formal meeting of council, and disposition was deferred, it was admitted by counsel for Mr. Dublin that the charges were not sustained by the evidence. In the course of the testimony it developed that Mr. Dublin had been in consultation with John R. Bratton, one of the truant officers of the school district, and P. B. Arnold, an electrical contractor, both of whom admitted under cross-examination that they were not on friendly terms with Mr. Downs, the former by reason of a controversy over a property line and the latter as a result of the action of Mr. Downs enforcing the ordinances regarding electrical work. These gentlemen, together Frank E. Walters, janitor of the Irving school building, and E. M. Brown, janitor of the Madison building, were the witnesses in the case. Mayor Charles E. Rhodes presided at the Investigation, which was conducted in the council chamber. Commissioners Ira J. Shelley, Frank E. Rooney, John P. Stouch and W.C. Myton and City Solicitor Thomas C. Hare were present. Dublin was represented by Attorney Isaiah Scheeline, while Attorney John F. Sullivan defended the accused officials. A large number of citizens were present. In opening the investigation Mayor Rhodes stated that it was called for the purpose of probing the charges against Mr. Downs and his assistant. The formal charges were then laid before the body by Mr. Scheeline and read by the county clerk. Three additional charges were presented in writing and signed by John R. Bratton. Mr. Dublin was first sworn and the various items in his bill of charges were gone over. In brief, the charges were that in the Endress meat market at 604 Fourth avenue live wires were hanging around meat hooks; at the Palace theatre, 1121 Eleventh avenue, both resistance coils are outside of the booth; at the East End hotel there is a swinging sign hanging over the pavement; that at 716 Seventeenth street, two show windows were wired without inspection; at the Miller school building wire joints were not properly soldered and the wires not protected; that at 705-7 Eleventh avenue there are live wires around a chimney; that no inspection of wiring has been made at the Madison school; that John Dughi had wired his show cases in a manner other electricians and merchants were not permitted; that in the Irving school there were loose joints and unprotected wires; that at 422 Twenty-second avenue there were live wires on a roof; that at Eighth avenue and Eleventh street there were live wires within reach of children, and that there were dangerous conditions at 1020 Federal avenue, and at Fifth avenue and Fifth street. Under cross-examination by Mr. Sullivan, Mr. Dublin asserted that he was actuated only for the public good and that he had always been on friendly terms with Mr. Downs. In the course of his testimony Mr. Dublin constantly referred to a little notebook in his hand. "Did you call the attention of Mr. Downs to these alleged dangerous conditions?" asked Mr. Sullivan. "I did not think it worth while," said Mr. Dublin. He admitted that he had talked to Mr. Bratton about the charges, but did not regard it as his place to talk to Downs about the defects. Most of the discoveries embodied in the charges were made in November and Mr. Sullivan asked Dublin why he did not take them up to Mr. Kuebler, as head of the department. "I didn't think of that," said Dublin. He admitted that he had circulated a petition asking for his appointment to the position held by Hudson, that he had attached this petition, carry about 100 names, to the charges which he laid before the mayor and Mr. Myton. Mr. Sullivan then questioned Dublin that Dublin wanted to create the impression with the commissioners that all the men who signed his petition for a job were back of his charges against Downs. Mr. Sullivan then questioned Downs closely regarding the various allegations of defective and dangerous conditions, concerning which Dublin admitted that he spoke to Bratton, but not with Downs or Hudson. Questioning him regarding the work at the Madison school, Mr. Sullivan asked him where he met Bratton when they talked about it. "On Eleventh avenue," said Dublin. " By appointment?" asked the attorney. "Oh, partly," he replied. The alleged defects at the Palace theatre as well as most of the others Dublin said he found in November. "Why did you learn so much in November; was it then that you were aspiring to Hudson's position?" asked Sullivan. "Not exactly," he replied. Dublin denied that he had been directed by Bratton to go to the Miller and Irving schools. "I had no other motive than to see if the work was done right," he averred. He admitted, however, that he had talked to Bratton about what he found. The defect in the Irving school over which so much hubbub was raised came about in this way: On the attic some tinners who had been working there scraped the insulation off a wire for about two inches and attached a wire there to secure a light. When they were through they cut off their attachments and the remnants hung there. When Mr. Hudson made an inspection of some electrical work done in the lower part of the building no one called his attention to this, if anyone knew of its existence and nothing was done. Neither Dublin, Bratton nor the janitor ever told Downs or Hudson about it. Mr. Sullivan pressed Dublin to give him the names of the "many" citizens who had complained of improper inspections, but the only names he could give were Mr. Gearhart and Mr. Keisel. Mr. Sullivan made him admit that when he found live wires near a school building, a menace to the children and the public in general, he made not report to anyone and said nothing about it until he embodied it in his charges. Dublin used the pronoun "we" in making his charges against the electrician, although his was the only name signed to the charges. At this stage of the hearing Mr. Sullivan laid the following communication, signed by all except two or three electrical firms in the city, before the commission: "We the undersigned electrical contractors are perfectly satisfied with the way the electrical inspections in Altoona have been conducted by Mr. Downs and his assistant, Mr. Hudson. These gentlemen are always ready to adjust any electrical matters coming under their jurisdiction, to the best interest of all parties concerned. We also think that they take the best interest of the city first in all matters toward making the use of electricity safe." It is signed by Spence & Finn, S. W. Weamer, J. Guy Schaffer, Altoona Electrical Engineering & Supply Company, R. F. Michael and R. A. Meck. Frank E. Walters, janitor of the Irving school, was then called. He admitted that he took Dublin around over the building and showed him the electrical work that had been done, but when asked why he did not show Hudson the defect in the attic, he said it was Hudson's place to find it. Mr. Sullivan forced the admission from him that he knew of a dangerous condition in the building and failed to report it to the city electrician. He however, said he reported it to Director Keith. E. M. Brown, janitor of the Madison building asserted that work had been done there a year ago and never inspected. On cross-examination he admitted he did not know whether it came under Down's jurisdiction of whether he had ever been notified. John R. Bratton was the next witness. He had made several supplemental charges against Mr. Downs, one that live wires were laid on a roof and another that a boy had stood his bicycle against a pole that was charged with electricity and could not get the wheel away from the pole. The allegations had been made to him by a policeman and he had no personal knowledge of them. Attorney Sullivan severely scored Bratton for thus coming into court and accusing a man when he knew nothing of the charges and did not have his informant present to testify. Bratton denied that he had been in collusion with Dublin in framing the charges. He admitted that he had talked with Dublin, but denied that he had urged him on, and he likewise admitted that there was some ill-feeling between him and Downs over a property lien controversy, but that his only interest in this matter was as a good citizen. Mr. Bratton said he got no satisfaction from Downs when he went to him on one occasion with a complaint. He admitted that he was one of a dozen men in the First ward who had met to discuss the "intolerable conditions" regarding electrical inspections, but he denied that he was actuated by motives of revenge. "Why did you not go to Mr. Kuebler?" asked Mr. Sullivan. "I thought this was the proper procedure," he replied. Mr. Sullivan argued to the commissioners that the whole thing was the result of a conspiracy on the part of Bratton, Dublin and Arnold, and when Bratton deplored the "unpleasant notoriety," Mr. Sullivan remarked: "Patriots are usually censored for their disinterested efforts. Mr. Bratton denied that he had anything to do with formulating the Dublin charges or the circulating of his petition. The last witness called was P. R. Arnold. The gist of his testimony was that Downs was unapproachable as an official; that they had trouble over a knob which Downs would not permit him to use; that Downs gave preference to police patrol and fire alarm system work; that when he, Arnold, was doing work for Mayor Walker, Downs was prompt in making inspections, but at other places he was not; that when he made mistakes Down would go after him promptly, and that the men who signed the paper already introduced as testimony were given the preference. Arnold admitted that there is not a friendly feeling between him and Downs; that Downs has prosecuted him for violations of the ordinances. When pressed by Mr. Sullivan to give the names of the contractors who were permitted to do wiring in one way and be obliged to do it another, he was unable to give them. As his testimony was chiefly hearsay, it added little or nothing of value to the evidence. Mr. Scheeline admitted at the close of the hearing that he had failed to sustain the charges, but asked for a continuance in order that more evidence might be gathered. City Solicitor Hare said that under the Clark act, specific charges must be made to the commission in writing and that no evidence covering other charges could be adduced in this case. He likewise explained that a report of the matter should be made to council in regular session and formal action regarding the charges be made there. The meeting then adjourned. The dismissal of the charges with out any evidence being offered in defense, gave Mr. Downs no opportunity to get back at the accusers. He, however, was fully prepared to answer every accusation that was made and to properly explain everything to which reference had been made. He would have pointed out that he is required to give the city fire alarm and police patrol system the preference and this would explain some delays during the busy season. He and his assistant cannot visit every building and find every defect. They go as far as they can. That he will be completely exonerated when council meets, is absolutely certain.