Fergus County Democrat. [volume] (Lewistown, Mont.) 1904-1919, 1912-09-24

VIEW CORRECT
POSITION TAKEN BY LOCAL At.
TORNEY SUSTAINED BY THE
SUPREME COURT.
THE MAYOR AND POLICE
Executive Has Full Power Over De-
partment in Cities Other Than tho
First Class-Oecision In Case From
Hamilton Disposes Of the Entire
Question.

The question as to whether, in cities
other than the first class, the full con-
troll OF the police department, with
power to remove the chief or any Of
ficer, rests In the hands Of the mayor
and council, was recently brought up
here, when the city attorney submitted
an ordinance intended to create a trial
board and police commission, as pro
vided Tor In the new state police law.
AT that time, w. M. Blackford, to
whom the question had been submitted
by the police committee. presented an
opinion in which he held that the
police commission law, so-called, did
not apply in cities other than the first
class. where It went into operation
automatically; that In cities other than
the flrst class the law must be put In
operation by ordinance, such action
being entirely optional; that In the
absence OF this legislation the mayor
and council had iull control of the
police department and the mayor
could remove a member at any time
Tor derelictiOn.
This view was strongly opposed,
but the supreme court last week de-
cided a case involving exactly that
point and the decision fully and COM
pletely sustains the position taken by
Mr.. Blackiord In all particulars.
The matter Is Of great Importance,
not only In LewistoWn, but In all cities
other than the first class, where the
expensive and somewhat cumbersome
machinery of the trial board Is not es-
tablished. The Helena Independent
gives the following summary Of the
supreme court decision:
1 ~ fhxNu SnA ~ t,l <H1u u<,es
In Montana are not bound by the So
called metropolitan police law, unless
they see fit to adopt 1t, according to a
decision OF the supreme court, handed
down yesterday In the case OF j. j.
Crush and G. G. Coulter against d. A.
Bishop and J. II. Howey, all of Hamil-
ton. The case came up over the re.
fusal OF the defendants to vacate their
offices as chief of police and night
patrolman OF the city OF Hamilton,
which Is a city Of the third class.
Bishop and HoWey had been appoint
ed to their respective offices by the
mayor of Hamilton and with the con-
sent of the board of aldermen. Their
first appointment had been made In
1908, and they had been re-appointed
In 1910. At the election held in the
spring of 1912, a new mayor was elect
ed and he subsequently appointed
Crush and Coulter to the positions
held by Bishop and Howey. The lat
ter refused to give up their offices and
continued to do their duties. A suit
in ejectment being brought In the dis.
trict court, 1t was decided in favor of
the defendants, on the proposition
that the city was under the provisions
of the police law.
An appeal was taken by the plain
tiffs to the supreme court, which holds
that as the defendants were not ap
pointed under the law In question
they have no recourse to 1t to hold
! their positions and further that ac
cording to the wording OF the law the
cities of the second and third class
4 the state need not adopt the ex
amining and trial board, which is the
fundamental part OF the system, un
! less they wish to.
The decision of the lower court was
!. reversed and judgment ordered en-
! tered in favor of the plaintiffs.