The record-union., 1892-03-14
APPOINT THE CHIEF OF POLICE.
Why the Method is Better Than Elect
ing That Official.
Freeholder Smith Gives Some More
Points on the Advantages of
the New Charter.

5. b. Smith, an active member of the
late Board Of F'reeholders, was inter
viewed again yesterday with reference to
some of the radical departures from the
present method Of city government. pro-
prosed in the new charter Just submitted.
The reporter called Mr.. Smiths atten-
tfon to the fact that the new charter pro-
poses that the Chief of Police shall here
after be appointed by the Mayor instead
ofbeing elected by the people as at present,
and he questioned the Freeholder as to
the line of argument that brought the
board to this conclusion.
WILL GET BETTER SERVICE.
WELL" said Mr.. Smith, ''we reached
that conclusion on the proposition that
the Chief of Police, in order to be forced
TO do his duty, should be responsible to
somebody other than the people. And
/ will tell you why. If the Chief is ap-
pointed as we have proposed in the new
charter, he will then be responsible to
the appointing power and be instructed
as so what he shall do for the good of
the city, when such instructions are nee
essary. Then if he does not do it he can
be removed and somebody appointed in
his place who will do it. There will be
no excuse then for not enforcing the
laws and ordinances. He cannot fall
back upon the dignity that might attach
itself 10 him as an elective officer. The
experience of San Francisco alone is
sufficient to demonstrate the value OF
this system of appointing the head of the
Police Department-alth there he is
appointed by the Board of Police Com
missioners, which is permanent body.
The fact of the matter is, there is only
one really good Police Department in the
United States where the Chief is elected,
and that is in Philadelphia. All the other
large cities appoint the Chief. Now, by
COMPARING TILE TWO SYSTEMS,
/ think can convince your readers that
the one we propose IN the new char
Ter is superior. Under our present char
ter the Chief is elected, and is his own
boss, so to speak. He has the power to
20 where and when he pleases, and do
what he pleases. There is nobody to
compel him to be at his office to attend to
the wants of the people, and, conse-
quently, he doesn't do it. He uses his
own judgment as to what laws should be
enforced-and when-and what laws
should not. 1t does not make any differ
ence 10 him how loudly the people de-
Inand that their laws be carried out and
certain vices already condemned be sup
pressed. He acts just as he sees fit. Now.
note the difference under the appointiye
charter the Chief Of Police is responsible
To the Mayor, and the Mayor being re-
sponSlble to the people-and knowing
that he must select man who Will be ac-
cepted by the Board of Trustees-is GER
tainly going to put forward the best man
he can find, and a man who is not going
to be hoWled at by the people for not do
ing his duty. Under the new charter the
Chief has his regular hours, the same as
Rny other city employe, and he cannot lli-
verge from this without the consent of
the Mayor. Under the old charter the
only way the people can punish a
Chief for not doing his duty is
The next election. you know. But
under the proposed new charter he can
lie removed at any moment and another
man put in his place who will do what is
required OF him. When ordinances and
laws are not being enforced all the Mayor
las to do is notify the Chief and he can
compel him to enforce them immediately
The people and press have direct access
to the Mayor and he won't have much of
an opportunity to wink at violations of
the law, or lay the blame upon the Chief
of Police.
WILL GET GOOD MEN.
Now, there is another good argument
in favor of the system proposed in the
new charter" I" continued Mr.. Smith. tTn
appointing the Chief of Police we are
more apt to get man qualified for the
position, which is not often the case under
our present city government. Political
conventions do not often take into consid-
Grafton a mans fitness for the Office he is
nominated for. 1t is more his popularity
or his sack than anything else-his abil-
ity to get votes. As long as a man
gets the party nomination, that seems
to be qualification enough, whether he is
competent or not. Now it does not re-
thinking, Intelligent man, that such a
practice is wrong. 1t does the city harm,
great harm. But under the new charter
it Will be q case of find the best-qualified
man. 1 believe that under the new