The Jersey City news. (Jersey City [N.J.]) 1889-1906, 1889-08-09
GEORGE DOUGLASS CASE.
IT MAKES Police OFFICERS
ANXIOUS ABOUT THEIR RANK.

Is His Degradation a Violation of the
Tenure of Office Act ?-It Is Argued
That This Is New Way of Getting
Rid of Obnoxious Members of the
Force.
The degradation OF George Douglass
from the position of detective to that of
patrolman has created much excitement
among the men of the police force. A
general feeling of uneasiness has been
awakened in the men and no one seems to
know whose turn will be next, as the ac-
tion in Douglass case seems to show
pretty conclusively that the new Board
has discovered a way of getting around
the Tenure of Office act when an individual
is to be got rid of.
Certain members of the force profess to
believe that the tactics of the Board will
be to degrade man in rank so that out of
self respect he will be compelled to re-
sign. Douglass was originally appointed
on the force as a detective. Commits
sioner Meyers had him reduced, but in
1887, on motion of Commissioner O'Don-
nell he was reinstated as detective and
assigned to duty as clerk of the First Dis
trict Police Court.
HOW IT WAS DONE.
At the last meeting of the Board Presi-
dent Feeney introduced a resolution
which, according to the printed official
minutes, reads Resolved, That George
Douglass be put on patrol duty in the
Fourth Precinct" Since that time Doug
lass has regularly patrolled post in that
precinct theesame as any other patrolman,
and the novel sight of a patrolman guard
ing his post in citizens clothes has been
daily witnessed.
A detective receives 500 per year more
than II patrolman and his duties are much
more agreeable. He is generally master
of his own movements, Is allowed con
siderable latitude in his Investigations,
and is generally looked upon as superior
to a uniformed policeman.
He is supposed to be selected for his
special fitness and a proficiency of which
he has given ample evidence, and his ap-
| pointment to the place is always locked
| upon as promotion.
When therefore Detective Douglass
was sent to the Fourth precinct to dc
| patrol duty every one in the Department
| felt concerned. 1t was argued that if the
Board could reduce detective to O
| patrolman why could they not begin with
the Chief and go on down through the
| force reducing men to the lowest grade.
THE LAW IN THE NATTER.
| A prominent lawyer in this city, to
! whom the case was referred, has said that
| in his opinion this action of the Board is a
direct violation of the Tenure of Office
| ACT. lnlS dcC pFONlu6S us lUllOWS.-
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 provided in the first section of this
| act and then only after written charges of the
| cause of complaint shall have been preferred
| against any such officer or employee, signed by
| the person or persons making such charge or
| charges, and fled and after the said charge or
| charges have been publicly examined into by the
| appropriate municipal boards.
| The lawyer claims that the reduction of
| Douglass without any charges having
been preferred against him or without a
pretense of cause practically amounts
| TO violation of the law.
1t is said that Douglass will probably
| take the matter to the courts. That the
Board does not feel secure in the position
it has taken is evinced by the fact that it
has not yet compelled Douglass to don the
uniform and carry the baton and permits
him to walk his post in the same manner
as any other citizen.
| When l spoke to Chief Murphy about
the affair he said that the simple assign
ment of Mr.. Douglass to do patrol duty
| did not amount to a degradation, as all
the officers, from himself down TO rounds
men, did patrol duty. He did not state,
however, whether he would consider it d
degradation or not If he should be as
signed to do permanent patrol duty in one
of the asparagus bed districts.