Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1882-04-25


The House bill 60 Increase the Force.
THE LIVELY DISCUSSION WHICH PRECEDED THE PAS
SAGE OF THE BILL
There was a lively debate in the House yester-
day on the bill to Increase the metropolitan police
Mr.. ROBSON ON THE SOLDIER AND SAILOR REPEAL
CLAUSE.
Mr.. Robson, speaking OF section 9 "That so
much OF section 34 OF the Revised Statutes OF the
United Statesrelating to the District OF Columbia
as requires that mo person shall be appointed as
policeman or Waterman who has not served In the
army or navy OF the United States and received an
honorable discharge be, and the same is hereby,
| repealed" asked: Now, do we want to repeal
| that? That is the first question ask-do the
| committee ask here this morning that we shall
repeal that section OF the Revised ST tutes under
which this police force has been org nzed since IL
existed, AM throw it open to every oody the Com
mtssioners, whoever they are, choose TO appoint,
without retaining the preference for Union
soldier? And, Mr. Speaker. they do not meet this
question squarely, but after striking out the pa.
triotic section, they give us substitute for il
which, II may be allowed the expression, whips
the devil around the stump llaughter;l II that Is
may say within parliamentary limits, "keeps the
word OF promise to the ear ana breaks 1t TO the
hope" There is no objection 10 that expression,
suppose (Laughterl That is provision which
provides that the commissioners, acting on their
own Judgment, snail give preference TO the Union
soldiers. What does that amount TO, and why
repeal the positive provision TO insert this weak
| substitute? We have already the section which
says that all departments shall give preference TO
| Union soldiers; but do they give such preference,
| or not? They do not: everybody knows IL, ana
you cannot make them, since IL Is lett TO their
| own executive Judgment
| MR. NEAL DEFENDS THE REPEATING CLAUSE, AND
! SPEAKS OF THE PREVALENCE OF CRIME HERE
Mr. Neal said the second section OF the bill re-
ported by the District committee, giving the CON-
miSSionerS discrestion in the matter of appoint
ments In the force, did not exclude volunteer
| soldiers, as had been charged during the discus
Sion But the practical effect is that all policemen
| who are now from time to time appointed to I'LL
| vacancies come from the regular army and navy,
because the material from the volunteer forces is
not here in the District from which TO make ap-
p0lntment But as have already said, IL this bill
shall become 4 law as the committee have reported
it. even then twOthiris of tie police force OF this
and navy, because this bin does not interfere
with the Een who have already been appointed
or with those who VIII be appointed to MI vacan-
ticn to the force Now say there would be nothing
wrong whatever Tor US TO provide that other per-
| sons than those who were in the army and navy
OF the United States to the extent or one-third
the police force OF this District, IL they showed
superior ability and superior manhood. might be
requires that Tor the clerical force In the various
departments OF the government in this city pre-
ference shall be given to those from the Ranks or
| honOrably discharged soldiers or the Union army.
| What Is the result7 In the Interior department.,
are appointed clerks. And il you will go into the
other departments you will find the proportion
sun less In the police force OF this city, which
above all others should be efficient and faithful,
under this proposed law two-thrds must OF neceS-
si;y come from the army and navy Why, then,
when the lives and property OF persons in tue Dis
trict are at stake, when the people OF the District
are compelled to pay the taxes TO support this po-
lice force, should we require OF them that which is
not required or any other city In the Union; that
Is, that no man shall be policeman unless he has
been honoraby discharged from the army or navy?
| 1t seems TO me there ought not to be any differ
| ence OF opinion on this point The doth Congress
when they had this matter unler consideration in
the code, provided that IS per cent only OF the
tire police force Of the District should come from
| the army and navy. That provision met with the
appreciation OF nearly every republican on this
floor, think, while the BIN was opposed In that
Congress by my democratic brethren to a very con-
siderable extent because it cid not strike out that
clause entirely and leave the Commissioners free
to select FOR policemen those who would be most
efficient In the discharge OF their duty. The gen.
tleman from New jersey INT Robesonl asks me
| force Is efficient. That is question that he could
| answer just as well as can. Whether the police
crime committed In the city OF Washington than
In any other place In the United States In proper
ton to population; and that crime to very large
| extent is Undecided. The papers are filled every
morning with accounts OF larcenies, burlareS
| assaults, and even wOrse-murders Whether this
prevalence OF crime Is the fault OF the police am
| not prepared to say. do not know however, that
whether the members OF the force are efficient
not the force is certainly insufficient In numbers
| for the proper discharge OF its duties
TIE OLD SPIRIT AGAIN.
| Mr.. Cox, in reply to Mr.. Robes0n's speech, said:
"DOes the gentleman from New Jersey claim
that it is In the interest of good police system for
this city-the purpose for which we are legslating
to maintain the sentimental statute which he
| would preServe7 This committee on the District
| or Columbia comes here and asks, I'm the interest
OF good police system that this statute should be
| so amended as to give discretion 10 those having
Charge OF the police OF the city to select the most
available men. Why not? 1t gives them the priv
ilege OF selecting. Why should not the selection
be made irrespective OF the war and its issues and
| soldiers? Then comes in the gentleman from New
loT tn did .NrS1w .frfo
would bring out the Old, thrice repeated, thrice
met question, the old terrible trouble. What lor7
or to irritate this Side OF the House. or possibly to
| unite the other side in the spirit OF hate"
| THE REPEATING CLAUSE STRICKEN OUT
| Mr.. Robson moved to strike out the provision
OF the bill which repeats the section OF the Re
vlsed Statutes which requires that no person shah
| be appointed as policeman who has not served In
the army or navy and received an honorable dis
| charge. Agreed to-yeas, 102: nays, 76
| 1.-THE provision, though in the original bill, was
not recommended by the committee on the District
stricken out and the clause or the bill declaring
the District Commissioners, in the appointment OF
| hOnOrably discharged soldiers be inserted
The provision recommended By the committee
| was then rejected
| POLITICAL DISCUSSION BETWEEN MIR. MC'LANE AND
| Mr.. ROBSON.
| Mr.. McLane moved to recommit the bill In SUD-
porting his motion he referred to the ungraceful
manner in which the gentleman from New Jersey
tMr. RObesOn) had treated the democratic side OF
the House. Carried away by his own war furore,
| the gentleman had chosen to make distinction
between the honorable gentleman from New
| York (Mr, Cox and the party with which he was
| associated. He asserted that under the law In
| force as to the District police force more demo-
| Gratis were likely to be appointed than republi-
| cans
| Mr.. Mller-Why did you vote againstit!
| Mr.. McLane.-BecauSe / have some respect for
| my responsibility as member OF the House. un-
| derstand that Congress is charged with the re.
spOnsibilty of governing the District OF Columbia;
| and cannot imagine greater dereliction OF duty
than the principle stated here by the gentleman
from New jersey, and he was only sorry to see his
| friend from Indiana {Mr. Holman) follow bad an
| example. The motive which had led gentlemen
| on the democratic side to follow that example was
not more respectable than that which induced his
friend from New Jersey to make an opposition to
| this bill
Mr.. Robeson.-Does the gentleman when he as
sumeS to call me his "friend from New Jersey" say
that my motive was not respectable! Is that what
| he meanSS
Mr. McIane.-Before answer viii withdraw
| the term ssfriend from New jersey"
Mr. RObesOn--And am glad the gentleman does,
before he repeats an expression as Unauthorized as