The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-09-23
DRINKING A COMMON FALLING
"POLICY" GAMES RUNNING WIDE
OPEN WITH POLICE CoGNIZANCE.
Victim of Burglars Tells Some Expert.
ences in Trying to Have Thieves
AppFehended.


lie Safety. During the nine months of the
current year large number of trials have
been held. AS a rule the charge against
the officers was drinking while on duty,
although a few have been tried for minor
offenses. Most of the men dismissed from
the force were found guilty of being drunk
while on duty. In many other cases where
the charge was neglect of duty the misfor-
tunes Of the officers were due to a too free
indulgence in syndicate beer.
Early last spring after the habit of drink
ing was becoming quite general and two
or three men had been dismissed for that
offense the Board of Safety found it neces-
sary to announce that men coming to trial
on that charge must expect to be treated
with severity. For a time this order had a
salutary effect, but in short time things
were about as bad as ever. Patrolmen real
lied that the mayor and board were pur-
suing liberal policy towards saloon
keepers and took advantage of this fact to
indulge themselves quite freely 1t was un-
derstood that laws and orders were to be
loosely enforced or were to be ignored en-
tirely. Men about town, particularly those
who habitually visited the levee and other
downtown saloons after hours and on Sum
day. saw that patrolmen paid no attention
to the fact that the bars were open and
that the saloon men, in fact, cared moth
ing for the appearance of bluecoat.
A number of patrolmen have been caught
drinking by FOUNDERS who cared nothing
about it or by men who would not report
what they saw as they did not care to be
drawn into a Board of Safety trial where
they would appear in the light of informers
and spies. Where private citizens have wit
messed open disregard of duty on the part
of officers of the police force the mayor
and board would have found it an easy
matter to detect and punish offenders had
they so desired. The patrolmen understood
that there was no particular objection to
them taking an occasional drink, so long as
they were able to control themselves and
keep the facts away from the superintend-
ent. In those cases that came under the
notice of the board the officers had been
so indiscreet as to appear in an intoxicated
condition at roll call or before some of their
superior officers, or else they had incurred
the enmity of some one who reported the
facts to get even
Last spring a man walking on Pearl
street in the rear of the Commercial Club
was rather surprised to see an officer stand
ing between the large mirror at the end of
a bar and the window that opened out on
the street drinking whisky. The officer was
protected by the mirror from being OBJ
served drinking by those in the saloon, but
forgot that a person passing outside could
see him plainly. 1t was night. He stood in
the bright light of the saloon. That same
night the man was in a levee restaurant
getting lunch about midnight. Two pa
trolmen came in and sat at the counter ten
or twelve feet away. They laid aside their
helmets.
you know what mine is" said one of
the officers to the waiter. "A sandwich, a
cup of coffee and little cup"
The order was filed The officer raised
the little cup''-it contained whsky-to his
lips. drank hastily and showed the cup back
to the waiter. who removed it from sight
Two or three weeks ago the rounder en-
tered saloon on Market street about clos
ing time. He found two patrolmen talking
to the "barkeep." He knew them ALL
Greeting the officers, he asked them what
they would have. He expected them to saw
cigars. He was surprised wnen they ordered
beer. They knew he would not ''peach."
The swinging doors of the saloon were
closed. The officers had barely guped down
their beer-for a wonder it was anti-syn-
dictate beer-when another patron of the
place entered.
Many saloons have little private rooms
in the rear. Not long ago a rounder was
in one on South Illinois street AS he stood
at the bar two patrolmen came out of the
little room in the rear There were telltale
wet spots on the lapel of one of the Off
GERS coat. A moment afterward the bar
keep" went back into the little room and
brought out two empty beer glasses with
the foam still clinging to the inside The
rounder saw this same maneuver repeated
on two subsequent occasions, once on South
Meridian street and at another time on
North Pennsylvania street.
Similar cases of a like nature might be
mentioned, but these are enough to show
why so many officers are before the Board
of Safety on charges of drunkenness. The
records of the board contain a bare recital
of the charges made, the names of Witness
es examined and the disposition of the case
against the officers who are so unfortunate
as to be detected. 1t does not contain the
complete story of the officers downfall
Joseph Richardson was the first officer
tried for intoxication this year. Jan g. last.
his case was heard. The minutes of the
board show that he admitted taking a
drink, but said that he was not intoxi-
Gated" He was nevertheless found guilty
and dismissed from the force. On a report
by Sergeant Corrigan, Albert Miller was
tried by the board Jan. Is on the same
charge-intoxicatlon The record reads:
The board finds that Sergeant Corrigan
did what was proper in the matter but
finds the officer not guilty as charged
Feb. 10 Patrick Dipple was before the board
TO answer the charge of drinking intoxi-
eating liquor while on duty, made by the
superintendent. He was found guilty of be-
ing drunk on duty and dismissed from the
force. Simon J. Guntz and George w
Diltz were found guilty of appearing on
duty under the influence of LIQUOR Feb %
and were each fined TWO days pay. Less
than month later Guntz was charged with
neglect of duty and his resignation was ac-
cepted March II, under charges preferred
by the superintendent April Z, D. B. Cap
ltnger was before the board to answer the
superintendent charge of being intoxi-
Gated while on duty. He was found guilty
and dismissed from the force. There were
two charges against Patrick w. O'Brien-
intoxication and neglect of duty The first
charge made by Superintendent Colbert
was not sustained, but he was fined five
days pay for the second April g.
charge of intoxicaton preferred
against Timothy Mackessew by Henry
Trout was dismissed the superintendent
stating that it could not be substan-
tiated. +. T. Mulhall was dismissed April
Is on charge of intoxication preferred by
the superintendent. On the same day II. c
kennaugh was before the board on
charge of drinking on duty. A number of
citizens appeared TO ask lenency in his
case. The board took into consideration the
fact that IL was his first offense -and in
stead OF Diminishing him as he otherwise de-