The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1901-01-29


by the month, and not by. the day.
AS regards the latter contention, Gus
tom and precedent, at least, are in favor
or the discharged men, and equity also.
The new administration was not inaugu-
rated until Jan. 7, and. the notices of re-
moval supposedly were not served until
after that date. common business rules
and commercial law entitle the dis
the date of theft discharge, and if their
salary is monthly, which seems not to
be questioned, the city apparently is due
to pay them their January salary in full.
This brings upGttwo other problems:
Must the city pay January salaries also
to the l05 new appointees, and thereby
overdraw the city salary appropriation
several Thousand dollars, or must the
new appointees go without pay for their
January service.r
The main contention OF the 105 DIS
charged men. namely, that the mayor
under the city charter has no power
Of arbitrary removal without investiga-
ton and cause, is one of the most inter
esting which confronts municipal gov
eminent in Minneapolis or elsewhere.
The discharged men quote the charter
power of the mayor on this question,
showing that there IS a string to his
power of removal Section l of the char
fnp ribs M In al
mayors power of appointment and re-
moval is subject to the limitations here
in contained" and therefore is not alb
solute. And what is the limitation? The
section reads, after proper investiga-
ton" Investigation" of what? Does
the charter mean investigation of a 70
Iceman's partisan politics or of his Of
fetal fitness to perform the duties of the
office? Supposedly the latter.
The discharged men call attention 10
the charter distinction between the power
granted to the mayor in appointing his
chief of police and the power in regard
to the rank and file of the force. The
chief of police is Subject to removal at
the pleasure of the mayor" the power
in this case being absolute and unlimited.
But in the case of the police rank ana
file, in place of Removal at the pleasure
and every person soaappointed shall be
subject to removal by the mayor when
he shall deem necessary after proper
investigation or byIitfe city council for
cause after a two4thigds t2-s) vote
What was the intent of the charter
trainers in this last clause? What is
the purpose of the proper invesdga-
t1on? Is the purpose to ascertain
"cause?" Did the charter trainers have
In mind in this sentence that both the
mayor and the city council in removing
a policeman should consider cause or
that the council only is bound to consider
cause" while the mayor is at liberty
to consider anything or nothing as he
pleases and may make a ''proper iuvestf-
cation of anything or nothing at his own
sweet will? Certainly here is a case for
nice discrimination on the part of the
court in the Interpretation of the city's
organic act and plenty of room for
learned argument on the part Of counsel.
1t is not the part of the Globe to
participate in the contest thus opened.
and certainly the G 0 has no desire
to anticipate the settlement of an issue
which belongs to the court rather than
to the press. This much, however, may
be said of the issue involved-tllat fSps
courts Interpretation of the mayors
charter power over the city police de-
partment will be of great general interest
both from standpoint of law, and from
that of good city government and prac-
teal politics. If the case goes to the
state supreme court, as there is a fair
presumption it will, the decision of that
body may, and probably will, affect the
Interpretation of other municipal char
ters of Minnesota The outcome of the
Minneapolis policed department problem
will be watched with general interest.