The Portland daily press., 1891-09-25

fore them, which has been frequently shown,
was strikiDgly manifested again In the case
Of the policeman charged with intoxication.
Under the existing law. which in some re-
spects Is foolish one. the Mayor may sus
pend apoliceman until the next meeting of the
Board of Aldermen; but to remove one the
concurrence Of the Board Of Aldermen is
necessary. The policeman in question had
been suspended, and when the Aldermen
met the Mayor removed him and asked the
concurrence Of the Board. There were
practically two charges against the officer
first, two specific cases of intoxication; sec
ond, habitual intoxication. The aldermen
found him guilty of intoxication on the 18th
and 14th of August, but they did not consid-
the charge of habitual intoxication proved.
So far no exception could be taken to their
proceedings. Though there was some evil
dence that the man had been intoxicated on
other days than those specified, yet it fell
far short of being sufficient to justify find
ing of habitual intoxicatiop. But when they
came to act upon their findings then the ten
dency to shirk responsibility manifested 1t.
self. First, they refused to consent to the
mans removal by the Mayor; then they re-
fused to consent to the mans reinstatement
then they concluded to place him on proba
tion for six months after a reprimand from
the marshal; then they adjourned; and then
discovering that they had made mess of
the whole business, they came together again
and suspended the policeman until Novem-
Der LIST. On November LIST the policeman be-
comes an active member of the force again,
having been punished for his offense by
ten weeks suspension from duty
We have no disposition to pursue the off,
Ger In question or to exaggerate the seri-
business of his offense. There may have
been many extenuating circumstances which
reduce the moral turpitude of the act to
very small amount. lntoxication is not an
offense that necessarily implies that man
Is bad man, or mean man, and it is
no worse when the subject of it is a
policeman than when he Is a lawyer
or merchant. But the question be-
fore the aldermen was not one of punish
ment The question was simply whether a
man who had repeatedly shown him
self incapable of resisting the temptation to
drink intoxicating liquor to excess while on
duty was fit man to whom to entrust the
peace OF the city and the lives and property
Of its citizens. The aldermen would doubt.
less have answered 1t promptly In the mega
tive. had not the element of personal sympa-
thy come into the case. 1t doubtless seemed
hard to them to turn out of employment. man
who had family dependent upon him, and
whose chief falling was a weakness for
liquor which he promised to try and over
49,
But they should have remembered that in
giving loose rein to their sympathy they
were jeoparding the interest of the commu-
nifty which 1t was their first and highest duty
to protect; not merely by reinstating one
man on the police force against whom re-
peated shortcomings in the past had been
proved, but also by setting an example that
would tend to injure the morale of the
force and to destroy that discipline so neces-
sary to preserve its efficiency.