Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1913-02-13
a policeman Of the City Of Bismarck,
North Dakota.

referred to n to furnish the names ol
Witnesses to prove the allegations above
set forth"
Now there is no doubt that you havt
the authority and the owe 10 remove
| Mr.. Mcdonald. He is your servant. It
is the Chief OF Police that you have APP
pointed. and your decision in this matter
cannot be disturbed. There is no appea
from it. But are you going to establish
a policy upon unsupported charges an(
information and belief ~aliidavits of re.
moving your city officials? If that Is
| good law, If that Is a good precedent tt
establish you have got a mighty serious
condition in his city or any other city
in the State Of North Dakota. The or
iginul reason for Incorporating In tho
Commission law the power to remove an
officer came. | believe, from Il situation
| that arose in Mandan. We were then
under the City Council govcrnmcnt-bc-
fore the Commission form was adopted
The mayor attempted to remove the au-
ditor because he claimed that the audi
tor was not Keeping the kind Of books
that he had instructed him to. And II
the auditor was not doing that he should
have been removed. Blu ii was diScov-
cred that there was no power under that
old law to remove him, and therefore. by
the Legislature that passed the city com
mission form Of government the proVi-
sion for rcmova vas inserted. am
not going TO read hat section to you. Ii
Is Section IS of the Session Laws of l9l1,
in which you are given that power. but
II says, no such officer shall be removed
except for cause, nor unless charges are
preferred against MIN. II was put in
the law for the protection OF the Chiefs
Of your department.. the protection of
your employees. and If they have no pro-
lection in carrying out their duties or
vour police dcpartment? 1t Is certainly
not a desirable office. Everybody would
not want to be Chief OF Police of as big
a city as bismarck is. Every time they
-, .l-n - ~ 81 ,,-Ipy y.np fiy1n fhav COLL far
order they are subject to the criticism of
the parties involved. and if you are go
ing to establish 4 precedent where each
man to whom the Chief of the Police De-
partmcnt goes and orders him to do this
or that or each man that he arrests
that it is going to he possible for him
to come before this Commission and file
charges on information n belief and
have him tried at his, expense you are
opening up a situation, gentlemen, where
you Will have no control over this citl at
all.
1t would be an agreeable situation for
the Chief Of Police to have to be subject
to every citizen in this community and
careful of how he used them. There
certainly should be only one authority
over your police and that is yourselves.
1t never was ntendcd by the Legislature
that these officers should have three or
four masters. because It is Just as true
now as it was in the Bible times thai a
man can't serve them. You have got
to have centralized authority somewhere.
And the Chief of Police should not have
to look to Mr.. Watkins or to the States
Attorney to find out what he has got to
do. but to you and you alone. If he
doesn't carry out your policies ana obey
your orders he should be removed. bur
if he does what you tell him to do YOU
should be mighty careful about renov-
ing him upon mere information and be-
lief charges Of a person who is a recent
citizen in this community. because If you
dave do, chat 1l will ln ~. yam, l'Ntn
of Police subject to the whims and cap
rices Of everybody in this community.
MIR. WATKINS: ] feel quite compIi-
mcnted by your City Attorney in saying
for | feel Just the other way in the mat
ter. ! am not Il lawyer. and in this de-
partment havc had very little experience.
In the matter of legal arguments. Of
course. ! am somewhat handicapped be-
cause of these conditions. Just want
to say this for YOU" benefit and for the
benefit of those who may be present that
this action or any other action that !
have ever taken against any individual
has no personal feeling in it. ! have no
personal feeling against Mr.. Mcdonald:
never had against any man that ! ever
tried to prosecute. 1t is my duty in the
enforcement of the law. and my only pur-
nose and desire is to better the condi-
tons and to secure a better enforcement
Of the law. My only hope and desire in
this matter is that we shall have justice
done in every way. 1t is not my pur-
pose or wish that any unjust action
should be taken.
The defense has gone into a discussion
Of the duties of the police officers. refer
ring to Section 27l0 Of the Revised Codes
of 1905. and | will Just read Il few verses
at the last where it says:
shall have authority to arrest and de-
tain n person guilty Of any breach Of
the peace. or any violation of the laws
Of the state. or Of the ordinances of the
city, and for these PURPOSES shall pos
seSs the powers of conStablcs under the
laws Of this state while on duty"
You will notice there are three points
there made. including shall have the
power to arrest for any violation Of the
laws of the state so that if there is no
specific place in the code where it is
designated that Il certain peace officer
shall arrest for this olrcnsc against the
STATE" or that o%ffcnsc, that in itself is
broad enough to bring it within the duty
Of this peace officer.
| do not care to take very much time
and enter INTO any long discussion. but
simply want to call your attention to tho
evidence in hand. evidence that has been
presented with reference to the three
points, coHtaind in the complaint made.
I will say as to that complaint-much
has been made Of the matter Of the com
plant being made upon information and
belief. After talking with the CITY At
torney | was led to bclicv" and believe
that he yet suStains and did sustain that
matter before you in his responses to
you. that this was sufficient, that this
is not like a criminal case. This man
IS your cmTioyc and you havc the power
t" discharge him or continue him; that
it is not like a mar charged with a GER
tain n~ffensc. This man is an employe %
yours and also q scrvan tot the people.
as are You, and when any complaint
comes TO you. whether that complaint be
a large Or small COMPLAINT, it becomes
your duty to investigate and know
whether the complaint was founded on
! good grounds and whether you should
continue" the employment Of tile emplOyc,
and ! need not dwell unon that.
We retained the positive afidavits be-
cause the procedure was uncertain, UNI
certain to yourselves and t" your CT"
Of hiding out just what the process
should be. However, they nave been
held sufficient and We nave proceeded,
and the evidence as we nave had it has
were able to secure the Witnesses that
we had hoped to give evidence in this
trial.
The first charge is that Mr.. Mcdonald
has not complied with the law Of the
State of North Dakota as to giving no
tice to the States Attorney with refer
| ence to violations Of the prohibition law
Section 1867. X. C. 1905 reads: TT
shall be the duty of every sheriff. deputy
sheriff. constable, mayor, marshall. po-
lice judge and police officer Of any city
or town having notice or knowledge OF
any violations Of the provisions Of this
chapter: to notify the states attorney
of the fact of such violation and to fur
nish him the namcS of any witnesses
within his knowledge by whom such vio-
lation can be proven"
Now. with reference to that matter Of
PROVING knowledge on the part Of Mr..
Fred Young and Edgar Holscr. who tes-
| titled that Mr.. Mcdonald drank wliskcy