Bridgeton pioneer., 1885-06-18
COUNCILS MISTAKE.

The longer the action of City Coun-
Gil in the matter of removal of Officer
J. Danforth F'ithian is considered, the
greater is the public indignation. The
Councilmen who voted to remove him
have made a serious mistake. Mr.. Filth
ian is a faithful officer BY diligent
attention to duty he has compelled the
lawless element of the community to
respect and obey police authority.
Because of this efficiency he has nat
urally arrayed against himself the evil
doers who from time to time have been
brought to justice through his vigil
ance. In the face of record that is
commended by the large majority of
our citizens, irrespective of party, q
majority of Council has seen fit to
favor an unknown and untried man,
who is in no sense equal to Mr.. Fithian
so far as ability for the place is CON
cerned. Mr.. HANDLE has little or no
knowledge of the duties of the office.
The argument made by a number
that Mr. Fithian has served upon the
force long enough, is an objection
which has no force. The terms of
faithful and competent police officers
ought not to be limited. Law and
order demand that good officers shall
be retained, without regard to poll
tics or term of service. Police officers
are not elective, and properly so, be
cause it was the intention of the franz
ers of the city charter that Council
should appoint, and thus place the
police above party and prejudice.
The office of policeman is an entirely
different character from that of any
other public servant. He is the Gus
todan of great property interests; he
is the executor of law as against those
who break the peace; he is a detective
for the ferretting out and bringing to
justice of criminals of all grades, high
and low Officer Fithian is such n
man. He does his duty no matter who
stands in the way. His retirement
from the force would be a public mis-
fortune.
Since Mr.. Fithian's removal. the
question has arisen as to whether the
act passed by the last Legislature enti
tied IAN Act respecting police depart
ments of cities, and regulating the
tenure and terms of office of officers
and men employed in said depart
ments,' did not apply in his case.
This act was approved March 25th,
1885. 1t was passed in the last hours
of the session, and was intended more
especially for Newark and Jersey CITY.
where SO much partizanship has crept
into the police force as to render the
departments in those cities inefficient
and corrupt. Because of this the peo-
pie demanded the passage of an act
which should prevent removals except
for cause. After a careful perusal of
the new law, backed by the opinion of
able counsel, it has been decided that
the law applies to all the cities of the
State, so that under its provisions
Council is prohibited from removing
Mr.. Fithian, or any other police officer,
for political reasons or for any other
cause than incapacity, misconduct.
non-residence, or disobedience of lust
rules and regulations, and no person
whether officer or employee, in the
police department of any city, shall be
removed from office or employment
therein except for just cause, and then
only after written charge OF charges of
the cause or causes of complaint shall
have been preferred against any such
officer or employee, signed by the per-
son or persons making such charge or
charges, and after said charge or
charges have been examined into by
the appropriate municipal board, Off
Ger or authority" &c. The law also
provides that each member and off
Ger of the police force shall be citizen
of the United States and a resident
citizen for two years of the city in
which he is appointed" Under this
section alone Mr.. HANDLE would be
disqualified because he has been a resi-
dent of the State barely year. and
was not entitled to a vote at the re-
cent municipal election. In view of
all this a special meeting of Council
will probably be called, and officer
Fithian reinstated.
The agent for Wanamaker's adyer-