The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1893-03-17
MARSHAL SWEET AND DISCHARGES.


To the Editor Of the Press: 4
In your comments on my report
this morning you say that discharges by
me 'shave included cases of brutal assault
and battery and larceny in which the evil
dence was entirely conclusive" deny
the foregoing proposition in toto with
the exception of the well known case of
John Kinsman for petty larceny, and
challenge you to name a case OF cases:
/ think as matter of justice you should
give this letter equal prominence with
the charge made unless You substantiate
the charge with evidence.
Very respectfully,
GEO. L. SWEET.
One case of discharge of a person
guilty of larceny which admitted of no
justification was that of the person who
stole some $25 or $50 worth of stereotype
metal from the PRESS Office and sold it
at the various junk stores. The evidence
in the case was conclusive, and the well
fare of the community and of the culprit
as well demanded that he be put before
the court This case came under our
own observation, and we are knowing to
the facts. Several other cases have been
reported to us, and, we believe, correct
ly, but we have no personal knowledge
in regard to them. AS to assaults, the
case of O'Donnell is to the point. Wit
nesses of the affair in which he was en-.
gagged testify that he was guilty of an
exceedingly brutal assault, yet he was
never put before the court These may
not be in the opinion of Marshal
SWEET serious cases., and
as compared with some offences
they are not. But the legislature has
conferred no power upon the marshal
to discriminate between what he may re-
gard, or what others may regard, as seri-
GUS offences, and offences that he or 9th
ers may consider not serious. Such dis.
elimination is lodged in the courts, and
they alone have the right to exercise it.
The motives which have prompted the
marshal OF his subordinates to exercise
this discrimination may not have beer
bad they may have been good even, but
good motives though proved would moi
justify a usurpation of power such as
this would be.
AS matter of fact, no power has beer
given the police department. to discharge
what Mr.. SWEET calls, in his report, ''sim
pie drunks,' but such power has un
doubtedly been exercised by our city
marshals, and no fault has been found
when it was confined to reasonable lin
| it's. But that Marshal SWEET has exer
cised it to much greater extent thar
his predecessors is shown clearly by 8
comparison of the receipts from police
witness fees this year and last. Former
CITY marshals have carried it quite fal
enough, Mr.. SWEET has carried 1T quite
| too far. This is shown not only
by the statistics cited, but by the i'm
pudent airs that the hoodlum element
has put on during the past year. and the
| insulting remarks that some of then
have made to the police officers while
under arrest 1t was strikingly shown il
Ward 8 on election day by the open ane
shameless way rum was drunk from bot
ties in the corridors adjoining the ware
room, and men rceled and staggered
about without any interference from thu
i police.
| How far Marshal SWEET is PERSONAL.
responsible for the improprieties and
infractions of duty which the police de
partment has been guilty of we do no
undertake to say. Whether the imprope1
discharges complained of were any O.
them made by him personally we do no
know. But he is the head of the depart
ment and he is responsible to the publi
for the conduct Of his subordinates. A
he is entitled to the credit if the police
force is active and vigilant, if their dis
cipline is good, if the city is quiet ant
orderly so he must bear the discredi
if the contrary conditions prevail.