The Portland daily press., 1900-12-12
MUNICIPAL aoYERNMENr.
the Editor Of the Press.


In the consideration of the police ques-
ton, is there not danger of making II
one of protection of police, rather than
OF polics proteotionp
La not the objection to placing the po'
lice department under the full control OF
the mayor based upon an imaginary
danger?
4 10 relieve the situation, a canvass
might be made of the objectors, and the
question asked of each: Would you, in
case yon were mayor, remove an officer
solely for political reasons?
If yes" the obisotor has absolute
power in his own hands TO nrotect the
police. in such emergency. lie can deolin
to serve as mayor.
Ii no." the objector puts himself on a
plane above the common rnn OF mayors,
and helps to establish an eligible list OF
unobjeotionabIe objectors, from which
future mayors may be drawn.
The following quotation Is from an
item printed last week.in one OF the daily
papers: lit is said the local police de-
parGment will actively combat the pro-
posed police act for Portland, which hep
resentative Webb is to introduce IN the
legislature. retaining s1rong counsel To
appear In OPPOSITION to its passage" 1t
rs to be hoped that this suggestion has no
basis. Such action would De suoh opan
characterization that the discharge OF
every police engaged in 1t would be I'M
peIaUiye. 1t would furthermore, be an
insult to the legislature.
The city government Is composed of
citizens, selected to manage the city
affairs during the year for which they
are elected. They are Representatives OF
the entire body OF citizens, empowered,
trusted and expected to act for tine gener-
al welfare, regardless of ward, DarIy or
individual interests.
The police department is but one
branch OF the general system, and II the
people, through their selected representa-
tives, see mt co make any change In the
system, an organized endeavor TO thwsrt
IL, made by persons In the service OF the
city, would be intolerable.
referring to the proposed legislation
relative to the fire department may there
not he reasonable doubt Is TO the wisdom
of giving five year tenure OF office TO
the chief, empowering him to run the
whole business as II ne owned itf In the
tivs years, there might be tive mayors.
but the chief would ontrank them all,
which would be rank injustice. Us 1t
not too much power, and too long and
certain tenure of officef
Assuming that fitness for the position
is the only question that any mayor
would consider In the appointment of any
chief OF department., why not give him
unlimited power OF both appointment
and removal in the police department.,
which department. seems to appertain es-
pecially to the Office OF mayor, and the
power OF appointment and removal OF
chiefs of fre and public works depart
ments, by and with the advice and con-
sent OF the board OF aldermen And why
not make the appointments for an indetl-
mite time, regardless OF changes in ad.
ministration, subject 20 removal at any
tins for causes The appointment and
full control OF minor officers and all en-
nIoyes In the fire and public works de-
partments might be given TO the chiefs,
but subject always to the mower Of the
mayor, which power should be supreme
The chief, being charged with the
ELI aient conduct OF his department. should
he accorded the right to select mis- subor-
dtnRtes
This tenure OF office would then rest
wholly upon merit, as Is the case in every
business IA which people earn, or try t.
earn a living. Otherwise they oould not
earn enough to pay taxes. Where would
the city he then, poor thingi
The effectiyen. s. of boLn departments