The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1900-08-09

sary to make in order to point its Gus
tomary moral. do not at all promote its
purpose.
The courts are to be asked to stay
the ruthless >hand Of the commission.
From doing what? Why, from disturbing
the partisan ROSTERS who have been
provided with easy perches in the public
service for the past four years, Of course.
airy, made the police force "the most In
efficient department Of the city govern
ment." Yet q stop must. # our content
porary has its way, be put by the courts
to ''the remarkable assumption" that
they can be or should be disturbed by
the commission. Could the philosophy
Of partisan politics lead even any Of the
ward heelers, who so badly disturb
the rest of our contemporary further
than our contemporary IS lead in its
zeal for a cause in which 1t so palpably
disbelieves?
But from what direction does the chief
evils Of the old police administration de-
rive It's conclusions that the supreme
court did not construe the law as to
the power Of the commission to remove
subordinates on the police force?~ The
decision Of the supreme court In the
proceeding instituted by GetcheH embod-
les this language:
There is no doubt as to the right of
the respondent to the office in question
He was appointed thereto by the board
of police commissioners created by the
new charter, and has duly qualified Sec
ton of chapter of the new charter
provides that all officers, employees and
members of the police force and depart
ment of said city of st. Paul, at the time
when this becomes effective, shall con-
tinue to hold their several offices until
removed by said board, and all orders,
rules and regulations applicable to the
police force and department, and IN force
at said time, shall continue in force I'M
til otherwise provided by said board Re
lator contends that by the adoption of
the new charter he became an officer
Hereunder and could only be removed IN
the manner and for the reasons specified
therein for the removal of officers. This
contention is not sound. He was not an
officer under the new charter, but was
subject to the rules and regulations APP
plicable to his office under the old char
ter, and under the provisions of the new
charter above quoted, section 16 Of chap
ter %, he could be. superseded by the ap
pointment of another person by the po-
lice board, and has no right to Insist
that he could be removed for cause only. ="
Why does the Pioneer Press confine
its quotations from the charter to those
sections which relate to the punishment
of members Of the force? It would be
making too serious a demand on space,
as well as on the endurance Of the
reader, to quote any of these sections
which establish clearly the right of the
board of police to remove any and all
members of the force at its will and
in the fuIfllment of the obligation i'm
posed on it alike by law and public
opinion of reorganizing the department
which, according to our contemporary,
has for four years been used as ere
fuge for political heelers to the detri-
ment of the service" There are num-
Der of such sections. For lack Of space,
but only for the present, the G / o
confines itself to asking our contempor-
airy to read carefully the section which
Is embodied in the foregoing excerpt
from the opinion of the supreme court.