Butte semi-weekly miner. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1886-1890, 1888-03-03
THE MEIKLEJOHN Investigations

THE MEIKLEJOHN NESTtGATION
The charges brought against the Chief OF
Police, which were heard on Tuesday night
in n dark lantern sort OF Il way by the
Committee of the Council appointed to in
ve~stigate them, are OF too serious a nature
to be disposed OF in the summary way in
which the Council have seen fit to act. In
the first place, the Chief was either guilty OF
the conduct charged against him, or he was
innocent. Ii the former, he ShOnld be dis
missed from the force; If the latter he
should be acquitted. There is no middle
course to pursue. Being the appointee Of
the Council, he is absolutely at their dis
posaI, and could be replaced by them at
any time. The charges against him, how.
ever, were made public property, and the
Council decided upon an investigation into
their merits. The Council, in ordering the
investigation, acted in their public ca
pacity as men elected to represent the citi-
zens, in behalf OF the welfare OF the comnu-
nifty. They saw fit to heal both sides OF
the question with a view to arriving at a
result that would be satisfactory to the
public. In the hearing the public were in
terested and from it the public were en-
cluded. The character OF a man
who had hitherto stood well in
the community was assaiIed, and
in order that the conclusion
reached by the Council should be satisfac.
tory to everyone the hearing ought to have
been in public. True, there were ladies in
volved in The matter, but their regulations
were not in the slightest manner at stake,
aud it was not essential even that they
should appear in the investigation. The
gentleman who madeleine complaint had
other witnesses to the occurrence besides
the ladies who could have testified to the
facts as they knew them and whose testi-
mony would have been amply sufficient to
establish his side OF the case. There was
no necessity to drag the ladies pers Dnally
into the examination, and therefore the
chief cause alleged for the secrecy with which
the examination was conducted falls to the
ground.
No investigation into offences alleged
against a citizen is fair in which the de-
PENDANT is refused permission to listen to
'lN Nhh SSc III 'iili SC pS LIN u
john. 1t is utterly contrary to the spirit OF
American institutions and the inherent
rights OF the citizen. The defendant in any
court OF justice has a right to be brought
face to face with his accusers. No court
in the land can refuse this simple
act of justice, neither can any court
or committee Of inquiry into a matter
affecting u mans public character refuse to
permit the press and public the right to
lear the investigation. How can the
Council expect to satisfy the public OF the
correctness of Their conclusions when this
has been refused? Do they regard them
selves SO perfectly incapable of erring that
any conclusion they reach lis unimpeach-
able? DO they consider themselves infalli-
BILE and incapable of making a mistake?
Are the public expected to put such implicit
faith in the absolute justice OF their concur
sivns that the public haveno right to know
how the council reached them?
The conclusion reached by the commit
tee and submitted to the Council may be
perfectly Just and such as the public can
concur in. 1t is hardly possible that the
members OF the Council could afford to en-
danger their regulations by arriving at any
other conclusion from the testimony than
Il fair and correct one. But being
delegated by the citizens to act
for them in all matters affecting
the city, the citizens, whose representatives
they are, have IL right to know upon what
Evidence they based their conclusions and
no subrosa testimony, the Tearing OF which
was confined to the members OF the ON.
mittee, can be satisfactory to the public.
The Chief OF Police is the appUiutee of the
Council, but he is paid by the taxpayers
and is therefore their servant as much as
the Marshal or any member OF the Council.
The citizens have a right to know wherein
lay the offence of that servant so that they
may know whether he deserves punishment
or not. THE MINER is neither Mr.. Mcikle.
Johns aecuser nor apologist. 1t hns NO in
terest IN the result reached apart from the
welfare OF the citizens and the maintenance
of the integrity Of the Office OF Chief of Po-
lice. 1t desires to see it held by 10 UNI
worthy man, and 'fnny occupant OF that Of
fee disgraces it, Tue MINER wants TO see |
him dismissed from the force. But in COM
mon with all the citizens it wants to see |
justice dom and to know by what evidence
the end is reached.