The Indianapolis journal., 1895-11-13
Is THE CITY CHARTER LAW.

recent Investigations by Hon. w. ID.
Foulke and ether active supporters of
civil-service reform indicate that they
are getting ready to bring Mayor Tag
gart's methods to the test OF law. This
ought to be done. We should know
where we stand on this question under
the charter. If the organic law Of the
city is binding in some respects and not
in others, it is for the interest of all con-
cerned that the fact should be judicially
stated.
Under the old system no person ques-
toned the right of the Mayor and Coun-
Gil to make clean sweep of all city en-
ployes and 20 make removals and ap-
pointments to office for political reasons
alone. In those days there was no pre-
tense of the merit system as such, and
as there was no law on the subject, the
open practice of the spoils system was
permissible. Even the police and fire
forces were constituted and used as po-
litical machines. men were appointed or
removed for political reasons. ana as
long as no great scandal resulted people
paid but little attention to it,. although
public interests often suffered.
Now. however. the case is different.
Whether the civil-service provisions of
the charter are wise or not, they are
part of the law. The charter itself is
the product of a reform movement and
OF desire to place the city government
on business basis by substituting the
merit system for the sDoils system in
the working force of the government.
This is plainly shown by those provisions
of the charter which require the adop-
ton of regulations for ascertaining the
fitness of applicants for Office without
regard to political opinions or services,
and which prohibit the removal of men,
bers of the police or fire department ex-
cept upon conviction of certain offenses
on written charges. removals for politics
being expressly prohibited. These pro-
visions of the charter are as plain as
that they do not mean anything is an
insult to those who framed the charter
and to the Legislature that passed it.
1t is thought by some that the present
city administration is bound by the
civil-service regulations made by the
previous one. The Journal Is of differ
ent. opinion. These regulations have not
the binding force of law. and yet any
legislative body can repeal the acts Of
it's predecessors, except in so far as such
repeal might affect contracts or vested
interests. The charter requires each ad-
ministration to adopt civil-service rules
and regulations. but it does not say or
imply that those adopted by one admin
lstration shall be binding on its sue
cessor. Every administration. however,
is bound by the charter and amenable
to public opinion. and if Mayor ignores
the charter altogether or adopts rules
and regulations in regard to appoint
ments and removals which are frivolous
on their face plainly intended to nulli-
for violation of law or called to account
in some other way. In other words,
while one administration may not bind
another by it's rules. the charter binds
all. and every administration must adopt
civil-service rules and regulations in ac-
eordance with it's provisions There is
no escape from this as long as the pres
ent charter is in force. The only escape
is in its repeal or amendment.
AS for the police and fire forces. the
charter expressly exempts them from
the operation of civil-service rules. pro-
viding only that they shall be as nearly
as possible equally divided politically.
and that no member thereof shall be re-
moved except after conviction on writ
ten charges other than politics.
The Journal is of opinion that the pres
ent administration has violated the char
ter in not adopting any rules or regula-
tions whatever except politics. for ascer-
tanning the fitness of applicants for
office. and also in the arbitrary removal
of members of the police and fire forces
for causes other than those named in
the charter and without the filing of
charges or the assignment of written
reasons as the charter requires.