The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-02-03
POLICE PENSION BILL.
Reasons Why the Measure Should Not
Be Given the Force of Law.

To the Editor Of the Indianapolis Journal:
1t seems to me that the Senate has passed
the police pension bill without sufficiently
understanding the facts. This city is now
facing an increase of l6 2-3 per cent. in its
taxes, an increase, l believe, caused wholly
by maladministration. The police pension
bill makes a present additional demand
amounting to about $4,000 annually, with
large possibilities in the future in case Of
a subservient Council and also through the
natural increase of the assessed valuation.
Places as policemen here are not obtained
upon tests of fitness, excluding favoritism,
such as usually prevail where pensions are
allowed This city had such tests and they
had been sustained by the Supreme Court,
but the present city administration ignored
and violated them, and has all the time
based it's appointments upon favoritism- OF
its first act in this line a report of an in
vestigation made and published at the time
said:
Among the new appointees was one who
had been dismissed from the police force
under charge of levyng blackmail on
fallen women; another who had been re-
fused an appointment formerly on the
ground that he had been running a craps
game, and who had once been in the Police
Court for assault and battery; another who
had been arrested for assault and battery;
another who was known a drunkard;
another who while on the police force, had
been charged with borrowing money from a
keeper of a house of ill-fame, and who had
afterwards been dismissed from the police
force for INSTRUMENTATION and for leaving
his post when on duty: another who had
been dismissed for sleeping while duty;
another who is ruptured and is physically
unfit to be patrolman, and others still, the
reasons for whose appointments can only be
found in their having been active workers
for the election of Mayor Taggart."
From that start the result has been
long line of policemen before the Board of
Public Safety for drunkenness or other
fragrant delinquency. In 1896 fifty-eight out
of 1876 were thus charged and forty-five
were convicted and punished. In 1897 forty
four out of 1853 were accused and thirty
two were convicted and punished. 1 have
not seen the report for 1898. This enormous
rate of delinquency does not tell the whole
story. For instance one patrolman left his
beat repeatedly for weeks for immoral pur-
poses. His sergeant MADE a written report
to the board. The man laughed about it and
said he would only be suspended, and, after
trial, he was only suspended for thirty days
and the SergeantS report was, by order of
the chairman of the board destroyed. This
case. however, could not be kept quiet. and
to avoid threatened public agitation the
offender was allowed to res'Tn. This shows
what can be done by offenders with pulls.
Ought the people of this city to be taxed
to pay pensions under such an obviously
lowgrade police system?
There are other very serious objections
both in and out of the bill. The bill COM
pelS the board to grant pensions upon the
examination of the police surgeon. He
alone settles the question. The police sur
geon is appointed for personal or PARTISAN
reasons. Here the protection against fraud
is not sufficient. / have 1t from the highest
authority that the mayor has caused per-
sons whom the surgeon has rejected to be
employed in the service of the city. What
in the future is to prevent such men being
worked upon the police force and then upon
the pension list? Full pay, which the bill
provides for pensoner reassgned to duty
within his power to. perform, is not just
unless the duty amounts to regular police
mans work. The provisions to pay $50 for
the funeral expenses of any policeman who
dies, and to pay his widow $40 a month and
his children each Sc a month, and his de-
pendent father and mother each from $50 to
$25 a month are made for policemen who
may not have been in the service of the
city week and who may have died from a
thousand causes not connected with the
service. They may have been appointed al
though they failed to pass the surgeon or
out of other gross favoritism: yet their
weeks service may saddle upon the city a
swarm of pensioners who will be with us for
years, and whose aggregate monthly pen
pay.
Assessment for campaign purposes is car
ried on in this city to an enormous extent.
In 1896 in the national campaign, common
laborers were assessed SO, workmen getting
$1.75 a day were assessed $25 and teamsterS
were assessed $40 TO $50, and so on. In 1898,
i'm the state campaign, 500 was at first de-
manded of policemen, but this broke the
camels back and 1t was reduced to s. and
paid. This money all comes out of the tax
payers If the employees can afford to pay
these blackmailing assessments then let
them be paid into the pension fund and by
so much it will not be necessary to increase
the tax levy.
The law only permits members of two
political parties to become policemen of this
city, a provision wholly unjust and wholly
unconstitutional. large body of men are
thus shut. off from this, employment. Such
fragrant injustice should not be rendered
more fragrant by pensio1ing the privileged
classes. 1t is q question whether police en-
ployment is entitled TO a pension system
rather than hundreds of nonpubc en-
Payments which could be named. If 1t is
then the people who pay the pensions are
entitled TO safeguards which will secure men
of the highest fitness and which will
clude every species of favoritiSm and cor
ruption. Such safeguards do not exist in
the methods of appointments in this boss
ridden city. LUCIUS B. SWIFT.
Indianapolis, Feb. g