The record-union., 1895-05-18
POLICE ARRESTS AND METHODS.

POLICE ARRESTS AND METHODS.
There are policemen and policemen,
and we incline to the belief that Oakland
has some of the latter order. Two citi-
Eens OF San Francisco who are OF good re-
pute. well known, peaceable and re-
spected, were out riding in Oakland on
bicycles They mistook the limits within
which they are forbidden to use the side
walk, and to their chagrin in avoiding
rough roadway were arrested.
That was right enough, and no one OBJ
jected to the officer doing his duty, but
the fellow refused the very modest re-
quest of the men to be permitted to walk,
or secure their own conveyance to prison,
and not be subjected to the indignity of
being taken in the patrol wagon through
the public streets. They were denied.
and despite their pleadings were bundled
into the wagon and landed at the prison
as are drunks, fighters and Barbary
Coast FOUNDERS, much to the surprise of
those who saw them bundled through
the streets.
At the prison they asked permission to
use the Office telephone to notify their
friends to come and bail them out. This
was refused to them. They then asked
permission to sit in the prison corridor
until q messenger could reach their
r-;o <bcf 6oniaR than
though TRUSTEES in plenty are accorded
that privilege, who are in prison for vul-
gar crimes, theft and the like. No, the
men must be locked up, and they were so
imprisoned in steel tanks, and compelled
to pay a special officer to 60 to Alameda
and notify friend. The next day they
forfeited So each for the violation of the
city ordinance.
So, too, lady and her husband riding
wheels were unlucky enough to mistake
boundaries, and violated the Oakland or
dinance against riding upon the walk
way, and despite the pleading of the lady
she was compelled to ride to the City
Prison through the public streets IN the
police patrol wagon, to her infinite shame
and discontinue.
Assuming these stories to be true, and
that they are we have no reason 20 doubt,
we have simply to say that it was un-
lucky for that good woman that she had
not q Sacramento man for husband.
since in that case there would have been
trouble, no matter who got hurt. Let any
one of US suppose for moment that his
wife violated some city ordinance not in
volving criminality, and for which she is
liable to pay fine. and that police OIL
Ger denies her the privilege Of walking to
the prison on being arrested, or OF going
in her own conveyance or in the street
cars, and insists upon boosting her up
into the patrol wagon and driving with
his load through street. where everyone
the wagon met would know the good
woman. If, we say, Sacramento woman
of good character, one of our good
mothers and wives, should be subjected
to such unnecessary humiliation and
shame by one Of the Sacramento force,
there would be trouble in this commu-
nifty for time at least.
Officers should make distinctions.
They have no moral right to subject de-
cent citizens to indignity and humilia-
ton because they are guilty of petty
misdemeanors. In the case of common
thieves, vulgar offenders. drunks,
toughs, fighters and prostitutes, it is all
well enough to use ordinary means of ar
rest But neither the law, the needs of
society, nor the demand of the people re-
ouire that any man, be he rich, poor,
humble or high, shall for trivial cause be
treated as is the rounder, the petty
larcenist, the common drunk and the
crust of the Barbary Coast.
There is nothing of ''ciass' distinction
in this claim, but there is the element of
common decency. The officer knows
well enough who is the man or woman
whom it is necessary to place in irons;
who it is that will offer resistance; who
1t Ia that will be likely to flee; who it is
that IL will not humiliate and disgrace to
bundle into the patrol wagon, and who
il ia that can be permitted to furnish