Daily State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1861-1865, 1862-12-01

Were Il no, foF the.e objections. and the er.
peItse. ne wouid ErOn0unce the Las good one.
but wlth the di.tre-s hkely to exist BY the war.
he thought il wicked % sink $50 600 Of the
hue in police force. AM thus 20 re the Council
that they must be deaf 10 the calls o. charity.
Mr. Coliey was very eloquent on this point. and
appealed strongly in behalf Of The families Of az
sent soldiers
He then dwelt At length upon the legal point
It issue. and contended that ii the ordnance was
passed.. the men now serving could claim and re
cover their pay for the remainder OF tie ear for
which they we're elected The lac provides for
their election, aud the law provides Tor Their
movsl. on charges being preferred against shen.
and in no other way. There justice IN
any other mode
sir Colley coptended strongly that the passage
OF the law would sfigmaiize the whole force for
the faults of a few. He was willing to condemn
the guilty and punish them but he would
give vote that might be construed into censure
of innocen. men. He demanded a trial for these
men. Hewould not screen the guiify--turn them
OUTPUT he would defend the innocent and good
men among them. IL a species of moral
eowanlce IN the Council 10 slaughter fourteen
men and disgrace them aud their families for all
time. 10 get rid of four or five. he would vote
for expellng from tie force any man who
found guilty OF an Onense a want of capacity.
but ne would suffer his right TO perish before
he would 90 act that would sully in the slight
est degree. the fair fame of innocent men. On
this point he spoke AT great length and with his
usual force and eloquenee.
Dir. ; A. Fletcher remark Ell that, 20 far as the
Policemen in his ward We're concerned they we're
anxious for any law-not only willing, but aux
ious-that would create a reform ia the force.
Mr.. Brown. in reply TO Mr. Colley. took it for
~ A. u.
purpose of irving Policemen. Ii was to enact a
law for the better protection of the persons and
property of the citizens, whose Representatives
the COuncmen The police law is defective,
and u was surely better that three four men
should suffer some inconvenience than that the
whole community should suffer. There are, he
doubted not, good men in the present force, and
they need not fear that three members Of the
Council and the Mayor, comprising the Police
Board, would leave them out in the new organiza
ton. He was surprised that so good a lawyer as
Nr. Coliev should contend that the Council had
not the power To repeal an ordinance of their own
creation. The power that makes Office can
certiinly annul il. or unmake it.
Mr.. Brown c9mtended that the creation of a
Police Board was the only way in which a police
force could be controlled. In regard to the gen
tleman's eloquent appeal for innocent men, it
was eloqueuce wasted. There no desire TO
stigmatze innocent men, and the innocent men
would hot 50 regard it. The mode OF trial pre-
scribed IN the law. before the Police Board
much better shield for the innocent than
under the existing law 1t Policeman is
charged now with offence, he must be tried
in open Council and the whole community may
be present Ii acquitted even, "A stigma will at
iach To him Not so before the Police Board.
Provision Is made for his defense and the session
i private; and ii the man is innocent, rumor.
with her thousand tongues, will not be twisting
stories respecting him.
In conclusion he would say a new police organ
izaton demanded. The old worse than
useless and could not be made effective The
city had labored long enough under the disgrace,
and reform must be had.
DR.. Thompson had previously stated one 0b
lection to the ordinance He believed the force
was now too small to give efficient protection to
the city. Dr.. Thompson had heard charges
against the police and he contended that it was
the duty OF the Captain of the Watch to make
charges against the denquen,s 1t was his duty
TO do so-It was what he was placed in the posi-
ton for He had heard charges, and on in
vestgaton he found they could not be sustained.
great deal of this rumor against the police he
presumed arose from the number'ot Watchmen
being insufficient than from any other
cause. He could not vote for the ordinance to-
night lt should be postponed for one week at
least. until the wishes of the community could be
further consulted. The passage of the ordinance
tonight would leave the city without watch
until the officers created by it filled by
election
Mr.. Ii A. Fletcher and Mr.. Haughey were in
favor OF the ordinance, but thought it best To de-
fer its passage fer one week until it could be
carefully examined by the City Attorney.
Mr. Haushey moved the postponement of the
final vote until " einesday night which was lost
by vote OF ayes 6, noes Z.
The vote Oh the passage was then taken, and il
was passed by vote oil ayes 8, noes ,.
Mr. Wallace filed written protest against the
ordnance on the ground that the present police
cannot bedischarged without the forms prescribed
by ordinance number three, and also account
oil the expense.
Mr.. Thompson also joined in the protest
Mr.. Brown offered "A resolution authorizing the
Mayor to appoint Chief and special Policemen
to act temporarily, which carried.
On motion the Council adjourned until We'd
nesday night next, when they meet to organize
the police force under the new law.