The Sunday herald. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1866-1887, 1880-09-26

As proof that the Democratic party in
Congress is inimical TO the Union soldier the
New York Tribune charges that the party,
and especially the Southern wing, voted
against his interest in the matter of appoint
ments on the Metropolitan Police Force of
the District of Columbia. The Tribure either
does not understand the case at all, or IL IL
does II deliberately misrepresents for par
tisan purpose. Under existing law the ap-
pointments to the police force of this District
are limited to honcrably discharged Union
soldiers and sailors. Last winter, when the
new code for the District was under consd-
GRAFTON, an attempt was made to repeal this
restriction so as TO allow the police authori-
ties to select officers from the best material
presented. The District Commissioners rec
commended the change The reason was ob-
vious. AS vacancies occurred on the force
and new appointments were necessary, the
men could not I've selected in strict accordance
with moral, physical and intellectual fitness
alone, hut the proof had to bc made of an
honorable discharge from the Union service.
This was practical exclusion of nearly all
men under thirty-Hve years of age. The
war has been over fifteen years, aud not
many were discharged in 1865 who were
under twenty years of age. Men who were
put on the force AT thrty.iivo were the ear
licst TO break down under the labor and tx
posure incident to n policcman's life. II
was for this reason alone, and to get younger
and more vigorous men on the force, that the
| majority IN Congress advocated the change.
| There was no antagonsm TO the Union sol
dicr in it, Men like Conger saw in this an
opportunity for little political capital, and
they avaicd themselves of it.
| why should this rule apply to Washing
ton alcne' Why should our police authori-
ties be compelled to select soldiers aud cx-
cudc all others why does not the Tribune
advocate the application of the same rule ia
New York, Philadelphia, Boston. Cincinnati,
or any other of the larger cities They hav,
more discharged Union soldiers in those cities
than we have in Washington. When W,
want policemen are we to advertise for dis
charged soldiers all over the land tn,
truth is there is not another municipality il
the United States that would tolerate such
law. They want strong, vigorous, health,
young men IA coDservators of the peace no
men who have been more or less affected l.,
the hardships of previous campaigning. Al
things being equal, the preference should h,
given TO discharged Union soldiers. but i
is simply an outrage to make Washington NJ
exceptional case, and to say that our police
men must be taken from a particular class [,
the exclusion of all others. II was to put III
on footing with all other cities that th
change of the law was recommended, and no
because there was any disposition TO derriv
the Union soldier of single right And w
may add that the Republican business mel
of this city would like to see the change il
the interest of greater efficiency in the polio
force. 1t is only the professional politician
who want to make capital of it, who see il
this another Confederate outrage on the Unio
5 soldier. The soldiers themselves understan
it to be all political clap.trap, especially whcl
they note the fact that the law applies t
t only one city in the Union.