The Saint Paul globe., 1900-06-13

chosen which could convey this idea any
the conditions which prevailed in police
administration and the record of incom-
petence and corruption by the present de-
partment which was in the mind Of the
commission, it requires no small degree
Of assurance to contend otherwise
"' shall continue to hold their sew
eral offices until removed by said board"
That is the language of one of the Sec
tions above quoted. "% all members
Of said police department shall hold office
during the pleasure of the said board"
That is the language of the other section.
Let US see what exception or quahfica-
the law which prevents the board from
exercising this absolute power of appoint
ment and removal so plainly conveyed in
this language.
The police department is set forth in the
law as consisting of board of police, a
police force and such clerks and employees
as shall be necessary to conduct the work
Of the department. All it's members hold
office during the pleasure of the board,
except as otherwise provided. The only
exception which appears at all in the law
is where it says that the board shall have
power to dismiss 'or otherwise punish"
any member of the department, but the
law also says that before the board shall
punish any member of said police force
by dismissal he shall have q public
hearing. This qualification is intended as
a matter of discipline. In case of mis-
conduct by given officer, If dismissal is
decreed by the board the decree is de-
signed to be enforced only after a public
hearing is had This is a mere disci-
plinary detail. If as the law says, "the
administration, management and control
Of said police department shall be vested
in a board of police" how is that board
going to assume control If at the outset it
can only do so through the punishment
Of its employees?
The public policy which is outlined In
such doctrine is a very narrow one. The
policy which would intrust the admins
tration of an important department Of
government to a given body and then de-
clare that that body could remove an en-
ploye of that department only as a matter
Of punishment, would make very light in
deed Of the public interests or of the re-
Of h. hO1 oh
the administration of that department
In the particular case of the chief of po-
lice the law IS even more specific and un-
questionable than IN that of his subor-
dinates. It declares expressly that the
chief of police shall be appointed by the
said police board and hold Office during
good behavior for the term of two years.
Mr.. GetchelI would read into this provi-
power of appointment of the chief in the
outgoing mayor and enable such appointee
to hold on for two years after the police
board took Office so long as he behaved
himself. This is of course, a most COM
Portable construction to place on the
law-for Mr.. Getchell. 1t is the construc-
ton which the Republican politicians
would have the court apply in each in
dividual case. from the highest to the
lowest member of the force. But it is a,
construction which is so laughably at
variance with the entire intent and
purport of the enactment, and so utterly
in violation of the purpose Of the trainers
of the law and of the desire of the peo-
pie of st. Paul in radfying that law as
to be unworthy of serious public or pri-
vate discussion. Nothing short of greed
of public Office could so completely dIvest
men Of their senses as to make them
openly the advocates of such view.