New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-01-05
THE POLICE IN THE CHARTER.

That provision In the police article In the pro-
posed charter which gives the Chief an ;'pso-
lutte veto power over the Board in the matter OF
appointments seems to us Illogical, ami likely
to prove miscellaneous II adopted. We hope II
will be set aside after its real character and prob
able operation have been candidly discussed.
There are also several provisions OF minor i'm
portance which have been unfavOrably cri'i-
ssed and which are not likely to remain TN
changed In the final draft. Bnt that feature OF
the projected system which is obviously deS-
tined to be the chief subject Of contention IL the
bipartisan board Of four members. 1t Is al
that point that the Issue is sharply drawn, ana
against that part OF the work the attack VIII
he chiefly directed. This Is not only natural.
but inevitable Everything else Is relatively I'M
important If this provision Is jndicous. the
whole police article IL essentially sound. DINER
wise it Is fundamentally wrong.
1t may be properly said ut the outset that the
Committee on Draft In this particular delip-
erately violated its own principle of constrnc-
,iOn-namely, that departments chiery execu-
tive should have each a single head. But 'he
committee can scarcely In charged with neon
sjstency. inasmuch as its report explicitly ex-
plaIns that an exception was made in the case
Of the Police Department in the belief that 1t IS
wiser to leave the elections in its charge thah
to put them in the bands OF a special commits
sion The intent of the makers Of the charter
is clear but the value Of the argument Is not
so apparent. Conditions have materially changed
within the last two or three years. ana that TACT
IS entitled 20 full consideration. Not so very
long ago a bipartisan Police Board was gen
orally regarded AS Indispensable TO honest cleo
tons. and many Of those who now most strong
~ advocate a single head for the department
were strenuous defenders OF that principle
When Mayor Grant reversed precedent which
had almost the force Of law there was loud ana
inst compaint. When in 1892 the bill was
passed giving Tammany twOthirts OF the elec-
tion inspectors there was tumult or ihdigha'
ton. 10 which hundreds OF prominent Democrats
contributed! But when the new Constitution
YVES adopted with provision requiring equal
ron o. entation Of the two great parties in every
Election Board, the situation was radically
changed. or course rascality is still possible
nv collusjon. or neglect and it will always he
nosslble under any restrictions. But the Con-
situton has established valuable safeguard
and the political status of the Police Board Is
much less important ITOIH thiS P"'"' VI ~ "
than it was formerly
We do not deny that for various reasons IL
NAV be more convenient TO leave the pollce i'll
charge of the elections. but we cannot CONSIDER
this a controlling consideration. separate pu-
reau could be so constituted as to do the WORK
with skill and with as much fidelity as can rea-
sonably be expected Of human nature. III
Police Board OF four members Is necessary or
on the whole preferable to single Commission
or II Is not we contend. because OF any require
ments arising out Of electoral laws or interests
Those who demand plural board. ana eSpp-
ciallv those who seek to retain the present NUM-
her Of Commissioners are bound as we con-
ceive. 10 produce better reason than this Iln'y
must show that the purposes for whlch Il Ioi''e
Department exists can in general be Deter
served nv four heads than by one. Perhaps 'he.
can demonstrate this. or at least produce strong
evidence in support Of their position. Certainly
they ought to attempt such demons'ratloh' IL
| harnens that an impressive object-lesson on 'he
other side Is being presented just now, but II
cannot be conclusive in their opinion. They
oueht 10 tell why they are not convinced. IL Is
| question Of great importance, and what all
GOOD citizens want Is to have It settled wisely