The Wichita daily eagle., 1895-09-29
THEY ALL GO FREE
SAYS TT Is EOT A CHINE TO DIS
CHARGE An OLD SOLDIER

Judge Walker Says Omcer Hucktns Vindi-
Gated Himself but He Holds that He
had Right to Discharge Him-Smyth
and Lfeurance Did Not Know and Keck
was Gufltless- In the Court Room
when theArguments were Made-Poiice'
Like Military Power, Well Nigh Supreme
A Dangerous Doctrine Proclaimed.
After hearing the arguments in the
case against the police commissioners
yesterday for discharging Officer Huck-
ins. who was an honorably discharged
old soldier, and retaining others on the
force no more efficient, Justice Walker
discharged the defendants. Smyth.
Keck and Lieurance.
During the argument Of the case there
were good many old soldiers who slip
ped in and listened attentively to the
arguments in the case. The tall form
of Officer Huckins appeared inside the
railing and he took chair and turned
his open countenance and the big scar
on his forehead, made by rebel bullet,
upon the court ana council.
He was no more interested in this trial
than any other Kansan who fought un-
der the stars and stripes because the
contest in which he was engaged was to
determine whether an old soldier is to
have preference over men not soldiers
who are no more efficient than him as
a policeman.
In summing up the testimony Judge
Walker said that Officer Huckins was
not on trial, but if he had been he should
have to admit that he had been vindi-
Gated on every charge that had been
brought against him.
The testimony he thought, also show
ed that the two defendants. Smyth and
Lieurance, did not know that Huckins
was an honorably discharged soldier.
while Keck was member of the same
Grand Army Of the Republic post with
Officer Huckins, and must have known
it.
This was taken by the crowd to mean
that Smyth and Lieurance would be ex-
cused while Keck would be held guilty
of having violated the law, but further
along he stated that the police commits
sioners were seeking to reduce the force
and that when Chief Massey told them
that he could best dispose Of Huckins
they had right to believe that he was
the least efficient officer on the force.
Men who are unacquainted with the
intracacies of the law were unable to
understand how this could be true when
Chief Massey had testified that he OBJ
jected to Huckins on account Of these
charges against him and Judge Walker
had said that Huckins had vindicated
himself against every one of them.
There were good many people present
who said they had always been led to
believe that ignorance of the provisions
of plain statute was no excuse for its
violation, but now they found out that
they were mistaken.
AS another grounds Of excuse Justice
Walker stated that the police force like
the military arm Of the government,
held large discretionary power and that
that power was almost unlimited in its
scope. He, however. did not say that
1t went SO far toward absolutism as to
justify the metropolitan police commits
sionefs in suspending the writ OF ha-
beas corpus, though that might be in
ferred.
When an officer receives legal order
to go from one point to another the or
der itself is supposed to give him the
right to press the soil between these two
points beneath his feet in order to
reach the point Of destination, and the
metropolitan police commissioners, hav-
ing been created by law for the especial
purpose Of enforcing the prohibitory
liquor law, have a right to trample
every other law under foot that comes
in their way. Judge Walker, however.
did not say that.
Taking the full scope Of the decision
and the law enacted for the benefit of
the old soldiers can be set aside by any
man who is given a little authority
as chief Of police in any Of the cities Of
the state. If the chief of police tells
the police commissioners that the old
veteran is the least satisfactory to him
he may be uncermouiously fired with
out even a chance to refute the charges
that have been preferred against him.
The arguments in this case occupied
a good deal more time than was expect
ed. Mr.. Rohrbaugh opened for the pro-
secution and in his address to the court
held that it was the duty OF the police
commissioners to ascertain before ce-
moving Mr.. Huckins, whether his remov
al was violation of the law Of 1856. If
they failed to do so. they were guilty Of
criminal negligence, and cited a case
from the supreme court Of New York in
which the court held that, when the
law imposes the performance of a duty |
the proper performance thereof is not |
dispensed with, simply because the per-
son thinks that in doing it in an unau-
thorfZed manner, or after his own fash |
ion. he has done the best under his judg- |
ment. The question is whether he has |
been guilty of willful neglect, irrespec-
tive of motive or intent to violate the |
low" And in the Nnited States dist |
rict court of Oregon it was held that a |
sea captain, who allowed his ship to be |
overloaded with passengers, was guilty |
of criminal neglect under the statute for |
failing to inform himself whether the |
law was violated. when it was his duty /
to do so.
And the Dakota supreme court de- |
cided that where the commission or |
omission Of an act is of itself criminal |
offense Gas it does in the Huckins case) |
knowingly and wilfully doing the act !
OF ommitting the duty imposed by the |
law, carries With il a conclusive infer |
ence of criminal intent, and no other |
evidence of such intent was necessary"
This was the position assumed yester- |
day by the state and which |
the court ruled against the state |
there being no authority read to the |
court. The whole bent OF this decision |
is TO the effect that before the commits |
ssioners could remove Huckins il was
their duty 10 ascertain whether that /
removal would violate the statute of the /
state under which they were acting, and /
falling. to do this they are liable OF a |
criminal negligence which subjects
them TO the penalty OF the law they |
violated.
The fact is the ebiect Of this removal |
crops out in the written instructions |
given 10 Mr.. Huckins. every item of !
which pertaining to the enforcement of /