The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1904-01-05
RYDER STANDS up
First Ward Councilman Refuses
to Bow His Head.
Makes Emphatic Protest at ssNo
Bond" Measure.
PROTEST is UNHEEDED
Chief Of Police VIII Not Have
to indemnify City.
Ordinance 30 Years Old Modi-
fed for His Benefit,
PROTEST is UNHEEDED

1.-TWO weeks ago we passed an ordi-
nance bonding our dog-catcher. Now
we refuse to require a bond of our man
eatcher.'-Extract from a speech by
Councilman L. A Ryder.
Much to the surprise of Mayor Ber-
gundthal and the administration
forces" Councilman l. A. Ryder, the
mayors own appointee from the First
ward, refused to stand for the ordinance
exempting Chief of Police McCollum
from giving a bond of 81 600 Neverthe-
less, the ordinance of which exclusive
announcement was made in Monday
evenings State Journal was passed by
a vote of to 4, and Topeka's new chief
can now sIosh around about as he sees
fit. for he is financially responsible to
nobody.
Everybody expected that Councilmen
Gr1ley and Snyder, the Second ward
Democrats, would oppose the move. and
neither was it any particular surprise
when Councilman Weber, the Fourth
ward liberal Republican, joined with
them. But Ryders refusal to stay on
the reservation and be good was an ex-
hibition of brazen audacity which al
most took the administration" off it's
feet. Even Councilman Neil admitted
after the meeting that he believed Ry-
der was right. But Neil voted with the
majority
The trouble with Ryder was that he
became convinced, after Investigation,
that the administration" measure was
wrong, and that the chief of police
should be required to give a bond, as
he has been required for the past 25
years He sustained his position with
good speech-which suggests the OBJ
serVatiOn that the new First ward
councilman is one of the best speakers
that has been a member of the council
for along time
Councilman S. T. Howe introduced
the ordinance which was calculated to
give relief to Chief McCollum, who had
been unable to find anybody willing to
sacrifice 81, 900 by acting as his bonds
man. The ordin ance was merely a copy
of an ordinance passed about % years
ago specifying what city officers shall
give bonds, ON lifting therefrom the of
fee Of chief of police as a bonded Off
GERS. It was referred to the police
committee, and in about five minutes
was reported hack with a recommen-
dat1on for pass age signed by s. Z.
= Howe, @. V. Wolf and George Neil
members of the committee. The Ordin-
ance was then taken up for passage
Councilman Weber moved to amend
by including the office of chief of po-
lice, with a bond of $1,000, just as il
always has BEEN Councilman Griley
wanted the two JailerS included, under
$500 bond each, and Mr.. Weber accept
ed the amendment. 1t seems that
neither of McCeEllum s-or Bergund-
thaI's-jaiIers have filed their bonds
evidently expecting to escape on the
technicality that nobody could find ar
ordinance requiring it, through such ar
act was doubtless passed sometime
and then lost in the musty records Of
the city clerks office. Jailers have not
always been so particular, and have
given the $500 bond without protest.
Then Councilman Ryder pushed his
chair back from his desk and cleared
the decks for action. He said:
Pm not much of prophet but
think I can foBeten the result of tht
vote in this matter. The members O.
the council have been canVaSsed pretty
thoroughly, and there is not mucl
doubt how the thing will come out Blu
I am compelled to support Mr.. Weber:
amendment. don't believe We car
afford to relieve officers from giving
bond. A bond ena bles a Door man tt
hold a responsible office. Rich neI
don't need bonds because they haVs
property which answers the same Dur
nose Thu ty years ago 1t was deameC
wise in this CITY to Mcguire a bond d
81 ee6 frorA the chief of police Her.
in 1901. Nilh four tin IS the population
Se had theE, we say that the chief stal
z.-zzs no EJlad. regard this as wrong
as contrary to the Drecedents of The
United Slaves government. Two weeks
ago we passed an ordinance bonding
our dog-catCher. Now We would refuse
to require a bond of our man-catcher
I believe that q man wi z, the power:
and duties OF chief of police has the
mower TO abuse those duties [ an
aware that ! am in the mdnority, but
believe I am in the right.
Legal authorities differ on the liza
hiiity of the chief Of police Some emil
nent lawyers say that if the city re
lfeves the chief of police from giving
a bond. the city becomes liable for hi
acts We might as well be frank abou
this. and ADMIT that the only reason
YOU want to make the change is on &C
count of the liquor selling. But we havt
other interests at stake which We Ger
4aiuzy ought to protect I shall sup
port the amendment because believ'
it Is right"
Councilman Howe said in reply: ''Thi
Is cn1v a question of being honest witt
ourselves. The chief of police has no
eiven a bond He probably will no
give q bond There is nothing which
REQUIRES him to forfeit his Office if h
does not give bond. Therefore 1 be