The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1883-07-25
THE METROPOLITAN POLICE
Judge Parrett's Decision in the
Agreed Case at Evansville.
The Validity of the Law Sustained and the
Rights of the Commissioners Upheld
Motion for a New Trial

Evansville Courier, Yesterday.
The agreed case between the city and the
metropolitan police commissioners was
finally decided in the latter's favor by Judge
Parrett yesterday. Upon its rendering, City
Attorney Rucker made motion for a new
trial and asked until Wednesday, owing to
the absence of his associate counsel, Major
Gilchrist, to prepare his bill of exceptions.
After a statement of the rules governing the
constituting of laws Judge Parrett said:
cit is urged against the act of the Legisla
ture creating a police force under certain
circumstances, for cities coming within the
purview of the act under the control of the
State, or commissioners appointed by certain
State officers that this is an infringement OF
certain inherent rights growing out OF the
just principles of local self-government. II
the duties of these officers were purely local
and pertained alone to the affairs of the city
there would be much force in this position.
While the charter of a city is its constltu-
ton, yet its powers of government are all
derivative, and come from the State, and
while it is confined to the exercise of its
delegated powers, and cannot exceed them,
yet these powers may at any time be altered,
amended, or even taken away at the discre-
ton of the Legislature, unless restrained by
some provision of the State constitution;
and this principle in effect is made by
the present constitution of the State
of Indiana expressly applicable to all cities
acting under special charters obtained
previous to its adoption. Indeed, the .Legis-
lature itself could not part with this power,
or barter or give it away in such manner as
to preclude any subsequent Legislature from
its exercise The general police powers in a
city are plainly distinguished from purely
local municipal powers. The object and
purpose of police force is not only for the
enforcement of ordinances passed in pursu-
ance OF the governmental powers of the city
derived from the State, but for the enforce
ment of all the laws OF the State enacted for
the preservation of the public peace and the
general welfare of the whole people, includ-
ing not only the inhabitants of the city, but
all Others Hence they are officers whose
duties concern the State at large or the gen
eral public, although exercised within de-
fined territorial limits, and not officers
whose functions relate exclusively to the
municipality. As question of legislative
power under the constitution, the better
opinion seems to be that the Legislature is
left free to legislate upon or appoint
officers not purely municipal, such
as board of police commissioners, in
and for a city under its general
police powers to preserve the public peace
and to secure the general welfare; and if so,
whether that power has been exercised ju-
diciously or whether there should have been
a greater regard for the political views of
local self-government by the inhabitants of
the city, are legislative and not judicial ques-
tons, and when the Legislature has spoken the
courts should, in the judicial decisions ac-
quiesce. That the act referred to is incon-
sistent with and repugnant to certain pro-
visions contained in the Evansville city
charter, and that it takes from it, as mu-
nicipality, some of its former powers, if APP
plicable, is too plain 10 admit of controversy
and that the Legislature had the power to do
this seems to be fully settled both by the
constitution and repeated decisions of the
Supreme Court This point was directly de-
cided in the case of the City of Evansville
vs. Bayard, 80 Ind, p. 49, The power of
the city to tax certain property was taken
away, and that, too, by general law
not go nomine referring to the city-show-
ing that the Legislature, in its discretion,
had the power to modify or repeal any of the
powers previously granted by its original
charter. But IL is further urged that the
actment under consideration may not have
been intended by the Legislature to apply to
the city of Evansville, and that laws of
general nature will not repeal special acts
unless the intention of the Legislature to do
so is plain. The act itself provides for
what is called a metropolitan police in all
cities of twenty-nine thousand or more in
habitants the language being clear and ex-
plict: That in all cities of this State of
twenty-nine thousand or more inhabitants,
according TO the united states census OF
1880, there shall be established within and
for such cities a board of metropolitan 20.
lice The act itself shows that it is to APP
ply to more than one city and that the word
metropolitan is to be taken in the sense
of a general or State police. 1t would
be doing great violence to the common sense
and general intelligence of members ompos-
ing the Legislature of the State to say that
they did not know what cities of their State
contained, bv the census of the United States
10000 or more inhabitants, fact of which
courts would probably take judicial notice
if not admitted, and to say that the words
all cities in this State'-being the State for
which they were legislating-only meant one
city, the metropolis of the State, would GER
talnly be conclusion that the language CT
the act would not admit of. 1t seems to me
that the act of the Legislature, construed
from its own language, as much applies to
the city OF Evansville as to the city of In
dianapolis, and that it was as clearly the
intention of the Legislature to so apply it
as though ex vi termlni it had named the
city of Evansville and in so many words re-
pealed so much of its charter as conflicted
with this act. 1t would also seem clear from
the facts in this case, that the Governor who
is the chief executive of the State, and the
other State officers named, must have put this
construction upon the act in question and so
regarded it or they would not have appointed
the commissioners under it for the city of
Evansville
"As to the uniform operation of this law
and the imposition of additional taxes under
it, the question by analogy with other classes,
seems to be settled. That it is uniform in its
operation in all cities of the State having the
required number of inhabitants and other
acts of the Legislature depending upon anal
ogous acts have been repeatedly sustained by
the Supreme Court
In determining the validity of the law
duly passed by the Legislature every reason
able intendment and presumption would
seem to be in its favor. Its constitutionalitv
ought not to be questioned upon fiimsy pre-
texts, but only upon solid and substantial
grounds, and in all cases where law is not
manifestlY unconstitutional. then the will |