The Portland daily press., 1884-04-28

cepted. II says, cit was shown that in or
dering places where liquors were supposed
to be sold to be closed after 10 o'clock at
night the Marshal had simply repeated the
customary instructions to the police" If
that were true does i prove that these in
structions are such as City Marshal ought
to give? The Advertiser processes the
principles OF Civil Service reform; does it
hold that 1t would be good defence for an
officer OF the Civil Service accused OF per-
mitting the collection for party purposes of
an assessment upon the salaries of his sub
ordlnates to show that he was only repeat
ing the customary practice of his predeces-
sors? Because laws have sometime been
inefficiently enforced, ARE thespeople estopped
from demanding more vigorous enforce
| ment of them?
The Advertiser says, SIT was proved that
he promptly collected a force to stop prize
fight at Old Orchard, and there is nothing
discreditable in that. What he was pre-
pared to do in that matter the Biddeford
police being nearer to the scene did, The
desire to stop prize light is not discredita-
bic, Of course; but the question is whetbe.
the measures taken by the City Marshal
were wise and efficient in view of his duty
at home. The ground of complaint is that
he injudiciously withdrew from their proper
duty as guardians of the peace of this city
at night large proportion of the whole po-
lice force. For what purpose? To take
them into FORK County where they would
have had no more authority than so many
private citizens! The proposition that he,
without any right or authority, was pre-
pared to do what the Biddeford police. hav
ing authority, did, is a manner of iustifca-
ton quite consistent with the opinion that
no complaint against a City Marshal except
such as charge criminal corruption ought to
be considered.
The first in the list of charges against City
Marshal Andrews made to the Board of Al
demen by the Mayor is this
That he has been culpable negligent of the duty
enjoined upon him by city ordinance; "to notice al
offences against the laws; to be vigilant and active
in detecting any violation breach of any law or
city ordinance" and "to prosecute all offenders
against the laws of the State and ordinances of the
city within one week after detecting ascertain
ing the offence or offences by them respectively
committed
Under this charge, already made, and to
answer to which the marshal is already
called, without bringing any new complaints
the Aldermen may, as we said, push the in
quiry as to efficiency in any direction they
choose. taking cognizance of the failure TO
protect the city from the raid of burglars
last summer, or of any other matter affect
ing the marshafs vigilance and activity Gin
detecting any violation or breach of any law
or city ordinance" And DO reasonable OBJ
lection can be urged to such a course; al
though we do not expect it to be approved
by journal which holds that culpable neg
lgence is not serious matter and that it
would be better to confne all investigation to
charges of felonious corruption. Uuless it
it can be proved with clearness that would
justify jury in bringing in verdict of
guilty that City Marshal Andrews has taken
brides, the Advertiser, if we understand its
position, thinks the City Marshal should not
be removed, even if the other charges are
established. That is not the spirit of reform
but the substance Of nonsense.