The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1900-11-21

The police commission can summarilv
discharge members of the force, if, in its
Judgment, it is for the good of the serv-
ice
The supreme court yesterday affirmed
the decision of the Ramsey county dis
tr1ct court in the case of G.. 4. thinner
man against the City of ST. Paul and
the members of the police commission
Mr.. Zimmerman ard the fifty-nine other
members Of the force who were dis
charged with him, without any cause as
signed, will now have no redress, AMI the
commission can go ahead unhampered
Following is the decision as handed down
by Judge Lewis:
Prior to May 1, 1900, the Municipal
Code of St Paul provided that the mayor
of the city to appoint policemen with the
advice and consent of the assembly, and
tnat poAcemen might be removed at any
time by the mayor, upon the concurrence
of majority vote of the common coun-
ell, and that the council could remove
by two-thirds vote, without the prefer
ment OF charges. Also that the mayor
might remove any member at any time
within six months from the date OF such
members appointment.
May l, 1900, the people of st. Paul voted
upon and adopted new charter, which
went into effect on that day. Chapter z
OF the new charter contained the proVi-
sions in reference to the police depart
uiSIl 0ucn consisted OF a
board of police, a chief of police and a
police force. 1t is provided that the po-
lice board shall be appointed by th*:
mayor, shall serve without compensation,
shall have been citizens of st. Paul tor
at least one year, and hold no other Of
hce under the city government during
their terms of office. After The first
board the term is five years, one to be
appointed annually.
Into the hands of the board thus se-
lected and constituted is given the COM
plete administration, management and
control OF the police department.
The first board was duly selected and
organized, and on three separate oCca-
sions, June IL, Aug. and Aug. 20, 1890,
the board unanimously passed reSolu-
tons summarily dismissing sixty mem
beTs of the police force who were still
holding over, having been appointed over
the old code, and the vacancies thus oc-
caS1oned were Immediately filed by the
appointment of new men. The appellant
was one of the officers thus removed,
and, desiring to test the validity of the
boards action. petitioned the district
court for writ of certiorari to review
the proceedings. The petition recited the
facts above stated A writ was issued
and respondents answered admitting the
removal, alleging that it was for the
good of the service of the police depart
ment, and not by way of punishment
and pleaded Justification under the pro-
visions of the new charter The court
below quashed the writ, and the petition
err appealed.
Section 2, of subdivision 1 reads as fol.
lows; Except as in this chapter other.
wise provided. all members of said police
department. shall hold office during the
pleasure of said board"
Section l, of subdivision provides thai
tne board OF police shall have power, ''Tc
| appolnt' promote, suspend, disrate, rep
flmand and dismiss or otherwise punish
any member of said police department In
the manner hereinafter provided and r.
require bond from any members 81
dlt1on thereof"
Subdivision reads as follows:
PROMOTIONS, SUSPENSIONS, DIS
MISSALS AND DISRATEMENTS.
Section l. Any member of said poliet
force who shall be guilty of misconducr
or preach of duty Shall be liable to be-
punished by said board by reprimand On
by temporary suspension without pay
not to exceed one month, or by fine
not to exceed one months salary, or hx
feeuctlon IN rank, or by dismissal from
service.
Section 2. Before said board shall nm.
1Sh member of said police force bv dis.
m1SSai, 1t shall notify any such member
and he shall be entitled to a public hear.
tIls qLoer such rules and regulations as
the board may prescribe. at which he
may appear personally and by council
and may require said board to hear anf
ENFORCE the attendance of witnesses il
his own behalf.
Section 6. subdivision provides thai
all of1cers employed and members of tht
ponce force and department of said city
at tne tlme When the charter became
enecuVe, should continue to hold theil
onlceS until removed by said board
II IS not uncommon for judges to as.
sumo knowledge of extrinsic facts wher
ii ,l.tpg statutes of peculiar public
practice is warranted when necessary t.
consider the history of and the cir.
culnstances connected with the birth
OF statute in order to discover the in.
tent with which it was adopted. But the
court should resort to such method OF
Interpretation, only when the enactment
Is so ambiguous that the intent of it,
makers must be sought beyond its owr
limits W.
Applying to this case the usual rule O:
construction, our first purpose should be
70 determine the intention of the fran
ers Oh the act by consideration of tha
act Itself. If the inconsistencies of which
our attention has been called should turn
out to be only apparent and if those
harmonlZed and treated as consistans
factors of and within the scope and
spirit OF the act, the Interpretation is
at an end.
board OF noltce possess the power to sum-
marty dismiss members of the police
force.
The argument presented for our con-
OOA4cLiA
the provisions above referred to are
inconsistent and cannot stand together.
That subdivision comprises the only
method of causing a dismissal and hence
the declaration in subdivision / that the
member shall hold office during the
pleasure of the board has no effect. In
other words. that the exception by pro
vision otherwise, is covered by slbdiyi-
sion 6. which excludes the general power
to dismiss contained in the prior section
. But, it is claimed, if it is not apparent
SUBDIVISION deprived of the general aT-
thority expressed in the prior section
then no contrary intention is expressed
that act in that respect is ambiguous
and appellants Interpretation is the one
most In harmony with the scope and
spirit of the act
As. to the object sought to be obtained
by the adoption of the new charter, we
may consider the provisions of the old