The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-02-01

puDnc sentiment was against the
measure he would vote no. But he be-
heved the people did not understand
the measure If they did sentiment
would not be against it The speaker
believed the principle Of the bill was
right. Mr.. Jones has criticised Mr..
Jennings for his action in relation to
this measure. He was merely follow
ing ar invitation of the governor to
make such suggestions as were outlined
in the message.
The speaker complimented the mayor
upon his message. although he did not
believe the suggestions practical, as
relates to a consolidation of the two
departments
The speaker said the police depart
ment had been charged with the per-
petuation Of the various evils Of prosti-
tuition and gambling, when this was not
a fact. The police merely make ar
rests; the police justice fixes the
amount of bail. When the bail is for
feited the police justice should imme-
diately issue another warrant. The
police department cannot try any per-
soh that belongs to the executive and
judiciary.
The speaker read from a report Of
the grand jury Of 1891. in which an
increase of crime was reported, and
again.
Mr.. Jones comedies that the ministry
is against him. and reads selected pas
sages from the letter of DR.. McNiece
to show that he is against 1t. The
speaker then read the letter.
All objections to the bill have been
removed. Although numerous petitions
have been signed, the headings are
unfair 1t is charged that it is special
legislation. but if it is a good thing
Salt Lake should have it. The state
ment that the board can designate the
number Of men in the departments is
only half true. The board ought to
have the right to designate. The city
council fixes the amount sufficient TO
run the two departments, and the
board conforms 10 the estimate made.
This is the best way for the depart
ments to be managed. This objection
is not valid.
Mr.. Sutherland held that the chiefs
ought to have the right to remove. 1t
was according TO the principle of exc
cUtive government. The only hitch is
the protest against ''one man power
The opponents of the measure object
to one man power in the chief, but
favor it in the mayor There is where
the shoe pinches. The chief of police
has no constituency to satisfy. He is
the executive arm Of the law and can
have no discretion. He must, in order
to serve the city. be removed from
politics. If the departments are under
the control of the mayor they are
under the direction of political ma
chine.
The objection that the board has in
it's power to fix salaries is untrue. The
board can recommend changes, but the
council makes the changes. The coun-
Gil. however. is forbidden to change
salaries without the suggestion of the
board.
The conclusion of the speaker was
that the objections were frivolous.
The signers of the petition
did not know what they We're
signing. Sam Ewing has declared
he signed without knowing the nature
of the petition.
In conclusion Mr. Sutherland said all
propositions had been voted upon, and
the only point at issue Was-shall the
bill pass?
The speaker referred to Jones dec
larati0n regarding the approach of the
chiefs to him, and bringing in politics
as statement highly colored, accord
ing to the statements made. The chiefs
urged that the repeal of the law would
result in untried men being placed in
office in Ogden. That was the plain
fact.
BOOTH FOR THE BILL.
Senator Booth said he was in favor
of the bill because it was a step for
ward in progress in government, and
in the interest of morals. All the writ
ers of this day; every paper of impor
tance advocate the non-partisan sys-
TEN. If we defeat this bill we are TAX
ing a step backward; if we pass it,
although it may not be all we want.
we are advancing.
AS legislators. we have nothing TO do
with the efficiency of the officers. That
is matter for the board. If the board
does not act the city council has the
power to change. Public sentiment can
effect a change at any time.
The speaker read from the Cosmo-
politan an article by Theodore Roose-
welt, a member of the New York board.
The reasons in this treatise advanced
in favor of the system, apply here. The
placing the power in the hands of the
mayor implies reward for political ser
vice. 1t means a low standard of duty
because the influences which surround
the Office of policemen are such that
they are restrained from performing
certain duties in many cases. We want
to avoid anything that tends to de
grade.
The speaker said he could vote for
the law. believing that good men would
be appointed on the board. The oppo-
sition to the bill is simply for the pur-
pose of getting rid of the present Off
GERS and no other.
Senator Allison said he had been &C
cused by the senator from Utah county
of representing the chiefs Of ogden in
stead of his people. This was untrue.
All petitions from Ogden have been IN
favor of the amendments to the pres
emit law. The arguments against the
old system are met in the present bill.
at least to a certain extent. Why can
not we discuss this bill on its proper
lines? We are not called upon to vote
against the system This bill is design
ed to improve the law as it stands upon
the statute books. The senator
from Utah seems TO have formed
a great many friends in this city One
would imagine he had forsaken Utah
county and taken up his residence
here with other attorneys who have
LETT the place.
The only question before the senate
is sis this law better than the old?"
The senator who leads the opposition
saws if an amendment is offered by
which the present board is changed, he
would vote for the bill. This does not
seem consistent.
The mayor wants all offices console.
dated. This is impracticable and
contrary to law. The recommendation
could not be carried out. If the pres
ent law were repealed the council
would have the power of appointment.
The mayor would be powerless, either
to appoint or control the police ana
fire departments.
THAT suits me" said Jones.
Concluding, Allison said no changes
had heen SUGGESTED by the onnoSition