Dr. Parkhurst Says It Must Come Off the List of Grand Jurors.

Dr. Charles H. Parkhurst intends to push with vigor his latest crusade. His charges against Hugh Slevin, who his society declares is unfit to be a Grand Juryman by reason of his violation of the excise laws in four saloons, are, he confidently asserts, supported by indisputable proofs.

Dr. Parkhurst also reasserts his charge that Mrs. Ophelia Byrnes, wife of Superintendent Byrnes, owns the building at Seventh Avenue and Fourteenth Street, in which is one of the saloons which Dr. Parkhurst claims Slevin owns. Dr. Parkhurst was in consultation with Thaddeus D. Kenneson, one of his most active lieutenants, when a reporter for The New York Times called on him yesterday.

"I have seen Slevin's denial of the charge that he had any interest in the saloons in which we claim the law is openly violated," said the Doctor. "We do not claim he absolutely owns the four saloons named. We do say, and I think we can prove, that Slevin has an interest in and receives money from these places, and, as in his saloons he violates_the law, he is not fit to be a Grand Juryman. He may not have the licenses in his name, but that makes no difference. Even on the jury list his occupation is given, of course on his own statement, as a liquor dealer at 211 Bleecker Street, and I think that is sufficient evidence.

"As to the denial of the charge that Superintendent Byrnes's wife owns the building at Seventh Avenue and Fourteenth Street, I don't see how we can get better evidence than the official records, in which Mrs. Ophelia Byrnes is credited with the ownership of the premises.

"I cannot say yet what our course will be should the investigation promised by Mayor Gilroy not result in the striking of Slevin's name from the jury list. We could, when the monthly panels are to be drawn, go before the Judge and protest against Slevin, and investigation would undoubtedly result in the Judge's declining to select him, but we want his name stricken absolutely off the list."

Mr. Kenneson, speaking for Dr. Parkhurst, said the Society for the Prevention of Crime did not intend that Slevin's case shall be an isolated one. Evidence, he said, was constantly accumulating against a number of liquor dealers who are violating the law, and at the proper time this evidence would be presented to the proper authorities.

New York (New York) Times, October 19, 1893.