The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1896-02-26
METROPOLITAN POLICE.
LIVELY DEBATE IN THE SENATE ON
THAT SUBJECT.

Mr.. Barrwell Defends Charleston and nsks
the Repeal of the Law--Other Proceed
ings.
COLUMBIA, Feb. 2O.-Special: The
Senate today was the scene of de.
bate which brought under discussion
the metropolitan police system recent
| ly established in Charleston
Mr.. May6eld called up his bill to
amend the law in some particulars.
Mr.. Barnwell moved to amend so as
10 repeal the law now in force, saying
that if his amendment prevailed he
would offer another to defray the ex-
penses of the board of commissioners
to the present time. Speaking to his
amendment he said:
The scope of the amendment just
offered to the bill is to repeal the po-
lice act of 1894. commonly known as
1.-The metropolitan bill," and to pro-
vide for the expenses up to date of its
repeal incurred by the police commits
sioners lately appointed under the
provisions of that act for the city of
Charleston.
When this body has before it bill
seeking to put further burdens upon
the city, and unnecessarily taking
from the chief city of the State the
power of administering its own police,
it becomes my duty as senator either
to give my sanction to this act OF in
Justice or to express my dissent as
| vigorously as it is in my power to DO;
A year ago, when the original bill
was on its passage, it was maintained
by its supporters that it would never
be necessary to enforce it; that the
grant of the power to put the act in
force would be sufficient to carry out
the object designed, the suppression of
traffic in intoxicating Gquors-but it
is on record that such was not my
view. It seemed to me almost self
evident, that given enormous powers
provided for by the act, there would
be continual pressure brought to bear
upon those in control of the machine
ry to put it in force. The present ad.
ministration of the city was given no
opportunity to enforce the act. No
time was assigned them for trial. They
were not put upon probation. AL.
though the personnel of the council
differed almost totally from that of
the previous administration, the ad.
ministration which had gone before,
yet they were held responsible for ac.
tions in which they had no part and
could not have prevented.
The act provided for no distribution
of the places on the local police boards
among different factions, and accord
ingly no such distribution was made,
and so far as I am informed every
member of the local board belongs to
the party in an insignificant minority
| in the city over which they now bear
undisputed sway. I challenge the sup
porters of the act last year to find for
me, in all of the statutes of the States
of the Union, one which would COM
pare with this, and the challenge was
not accepted for the very good reason
that none such could - found, and
today senators are asked to sustain
this law and to continue this undemo-
cratic aud unjust law; nay, you are
asked to intensity it, for although. the
amending bill covers nearly three
pages, there is not a word in it which
does away with the harshness OF the
original act, and not few of which
add additional burdens upon the city.
Do senators know that there is not
line in the original act which re-
quires the enforcement by the police
commissioners of the ordinances of
the city9 Not a word which requires
them to report to the city authorities
which support them? Not a sentence
which permits the city authorities to
inspect either the proceedings or the
accounts of the police boarda Nor any
intimation that the city authorities
have anything whatever to do with
the affairs of the board, which is
charged with the peace and good Or
der Of the city9
The property holders of the city
must view with alarm the fact that
their police officers are independent of
their will. 1t is the duty of the police
| to report all infractions of the build:
| ing laws of the city passed for the
preservation of the city against the
improper construction of its dwell
ings. They are also required to re.
port as to the lighting of the city and
| for failure of the contractors to carry
out properly their obligations. In
these and numerous other instances
the police department and the govern
ment of the city and the welfare of its
citizens are closely intertwined and
bound up. There is not word in the
act nor in the amendment which re.
quires of the new police force to obey
the ordinances of the city or enables
the citizens to enforce such obedience.
Do you not think, senators, that it
would have been proper and fitting
that inasmuch as the general assembly
was in session and this act could have
been amended before it was put in
force for the State authorities to have
sought some legal authority for en-
ploying more policemen than the act
permitted before they incurred that
expense2 And yet am informed that
although by law only one policeman
to every 1000 inhabitants areallowed,
the present police board has on its pay
roll many more.
It is known to the senate that the
city OF Charleston has made no resist,
ance to this law. Neither in the
courts nor by any open resistance have
her citizens expressed their deep sense
of injury at the insult to them implied
by the manner in which the law is