The Portland daily press., 1900-09-06
THE CASE OF POLICEMAN KEAT-

The CASE OF POLICEMAN KEAT-
ING.
The refusal of the Board OF Aldermen
to discharge Mr.. Heating from the police
force amounts practically to notice to
the public that a majority Of the pres
emit Board does not consider habits of
intoxication disqualification for service
on body OF men whose special duty 1t
is to guard and protect the..lives and prop
erty OF citizens and preserve the public
peace. The case against Mr.. Heating
was not one of single lapse. 1t was
shown that he was Intoxicated at the
station to such a degree as to attract the
attention of the deputy marshal and sew
eral patrOlmen, and to unfit him for
duty; 1t was shown by an un1mpeachable
and unlmpeached witness (Mr. Jacobs)
that he was staggering drunk at Stroud
water; 1t was shown also by unimpeach-
able and unimpeached testimony that he
has been In the habit of going into drug
store on the corner of Clark and Dan
forth streets, several times week while
on duty, and helping himself to copious
draughts Of gin; indeed, a special Jug of
this liquid was kept for him at this store
There was practically no denial Of all
this, except In the case of the Stroud
water incident, and the only defence set
up was that Mr.. Heating had been sick,
and that his coplous and frequent draughts
of gin " ere to be regarded as medicine.
His physician had prescribed whisky
and brandy when he had prescribed any
thing in the shape of alcoholic stimu-
lanfs. but Mr.. Heating appears to have
preferred gin. As to this excuse of sick
ness we have only to say chat If Mr..
Heating is in such an enfeebled condi-
ton that he can only perform his duties
as policeman by bracing himself with
whisky, brandy and gin, he should be
retired from the force on the ground Of |
incapacity until at least he has sufficient
y recovered to be able to get along |
without the aid of alcohol. If the |
aldermen took any stock In the sickness
theory the only consistent course to pur-
sue would have been to retire him tenn
porarily until he was restored to health |
and vigor. Instead of that they voted to |
publicly reprimand him and impose what |
amounted to a fine, thus practically ad-
hitting that the sickness excuse had |
little weight with them.
The law does not require aldermen TO |
explain their votes, but in the case of one
OF them what amounted to an explanation |
was voluntarily given. Alderman Dris-
coll voted to retain Mr.. Heating on the
force because he thinks there are other
men on the force more unfit than he. |
Mr.. DriscolI's position is that
unless all the bad men on the force can
be turned out none of them ought to be.
Mr.. Milliken' action is simply inexplica-
BILE. He voted that Mr.. Heating was
Of all the charges alleged against
him, and then proposed that he be publicly
Why he thought an
innocent man should be publicly
is beyond our power to
fathom. We shall not undertake to say
what motives animated the men who
voted to retain Mr.. Heating on the force.
further than they have said themselves.
but consideration for the public welfare
lnd5 their own duty to enforce discipline
IN the police force must have been entire
y put out of sight. They must have
known that their action would amount
20 notification to the force that repeated
drunkenness would not be regarded as dis
ualifcation-that policemen might get
INTO xicated occasionally Without fear of
anything worse happening to them than
/ reprimand. Their decision is certain to
force already far from what
{ should be. 1t viii paralyze also the eff
orts Of the heads Of 1t to weed out the cor
upt and inefficient men. They will
ay, and with good reason, that if the
3oard of Aldermen considers a policeman
Who has been proved guilty of repeated
Indulgence in Intoxicating drinks to an
xtent to destroy his capacity for the
roper performance of his duty, a fit
nan to remain on the force it will be ut
erly useless to attempt to reform the
oree while the present Board holds sway.
fYTT ID ID V1HTVy rxn-wnw-~-rv,