The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1897-12-18

HE mayor anu tititi VI poiiN' VI
Butte take a most remarkable
view of their duties, The mayor,
sn response to the efforts of the county
attorney to suppress gambling. says:
TT is the place, as | view it, of the
city authorities to enforce the city ordi-
nances and not the state laws There
are county officials who are supposed
no enforce the state laws" The chief
of police. according to the same re-
port. says: II do not consider il the
place of the police TO usurp the preroga-
tfves of the sheriff's office. | consider
it the duty of that branch of govern
ment to enforce state laws"
When an ordinary policeman says
that he is not called upon To enforce the
gambling law or make arrests under it
because ii is state law, ii is at once
understood that he is trying to find an
excuse for Sinking his responsibility,
but that a mayor and chief of police
of the greatest city in the state should
connect their names with such an ex
cuse is startling.
III the duty of the police of a city is
simply to enforce the ordinances of
the city. then the police force ought To
he abolished as a costly. cumbersome
and useless piece of machinery. for the
ordinances are the most trivial part of
our criminal laws and are scarcely
worth enforcing. In truth. If all the
penal ordinances of the city of Butte
were abolished the criminal laws of
the state would be ample for the pro-
lection of the property and persons OF
citizens. Worthless as are all the pc
nal ordinances of the city of Butte for
the purposes of government and petty
as are the offenses prescribed by them,
ii yet takes forty or fifty men to en-
force them in the city. while the sheriff,
with his small and limited number of
deputies is expected to enforce the
great body of the criminal laws of the
state. not only in the city, but through
out the county.
Would not this he an absurd state of
affairs? Can ii be seriously expected
that any man will. for a moment, be
lieve that ii is in the law? According
10 this view, a person can steal any
sum or anything. and the police have
nothing To do with IL; a person may.
in cold blood, shoot down another man
in the city OF Butte and the police can
refuse TO arrest. and say that is The
especial prerogatiye of the sheriff a
number of robbers can enter bank
and, at the points of pistols. compel
the cashier To deliver the money in The
bank. and a dozen policemen can stand
by fold their arms. and say that the
offense is not covered by the city or
dinances: a burglar may. with his dark
lantern and kit of tools. at dead ul
night, enter the dwelling house and rol
ahe inmates in the presence of police
men. but the policemen have no duty
10 perform, for this is an offense gov
erned exclusively by the state laws,
Is ii possible that the chief of police of
Butte acts on this theory
Not only is this theory not the law,
but, on the contrary. ii is expressly in
the power of the chief of police. and
much more particularly his duty thaa
that of the sheriff, To see that the state
criminal laws are enforced in The city.
I'm fact, constantly and uniformly the
it serves their purpose TO wink at viz
aations of the law in cases like gamb-
ling
Let US quote a few sections OF the
law bearing upon this subject: section
1875 of the penal code says: "A peace
officer is a sheriff of a county. or his
deputy. or a constable. marshal or po-
liceman of a township, city or town.
Section 1882 of the same code reads as
follows: "A peace officer may make
an arrest in obedience to warrant Ia
he delivered 10 him. or may. without
a warrant arrest a person. tirst-foi
a public offense committed or at
tempted in his presence. second-wheH
a person arrested has committed a
felony, although not in his presence;
third-when a felony has in fact been
committed, and he has reasonable cause
for believing the person arrested to