Bismarck daily tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, Dakota [N.D.]) 1881-1916, 1913-02-13

the city council for the preservation
of peace
state it as an absolute fact tina out
| side Of the question OF perhaps the pro-
! hibition law, which ! win touch upon IN
a moment. that this Is all OF the statu-
tory duty. that is laid down upon me
Chief of Police, such duties az nay
preservation of the peace. The chlef
is nothing more than a peace officer. .
person whose duty 1t is to see that the
provisions in the statute with reference
TO some particular law. This Section
27l0 goes "a little further with reference
70 serving PAPERS. viii read It 70 you
AN police officers and watchmen OF
any city shall possess. within the
city limits, the powers of c~onstableS
by The avs Of this state, n It sha.!
all warrants, process, commitments
and All writs whatsoever issued by
the police magistrate. or city justice
laws "a the state, or of the ordinance
cs of said city. or any provision Of
this chapter; and also all writs and
E i"s;,css T IN tiSi, acti issse' an eS , SssS
shall have authority to pursue and
arres, any person fleeing from JUS,
ticc in any part of the state; and
when performing the duties afore-
said shall be entitled to the same
fees as constableS for like SERVICE.
SO our contention is that as far as the
statutes OF this state are concerned that
the only duty that he has is as Il peace
officer, with the possible, exception OF
that provision Of the Code relating, to
the prohibition law, and which Is Sec
ton 1857. which 1t is very evident lhey
have intended to incorporate in tails case.
desire to call your attention. with ref
crencc to this bawdy house charge. that
there Is no provision in the code with
reference to the duties of the officers TO
inform Inc Stntp's atfprlpN IN connection
with bawdy houses and the only special
provision that we have it with reference
70 the nr" anie law ,d ana is as follows
vt shall be the duty ofcyery sher-
TT. deputy sheriff, constable. mayor.
marshall. police Judge and police Of
iiccr of any city or town having no
ticc or knowledge Of any violations
of the provisions of this chapter, TO
notify the states attorney of the fact
Of such violation and to furnish him
the names of any witnesses Witt1tn
his knowledge by whom such viola
ton can be proven
md here is the significant part Of that
chapter:
ply with the provisions of this sec
ton, he shall upon conviction be, fin
ed in any sum not less than one hun
hrcd nor more than five hundred dol
lars: and such conviction shall be O
forfeiture of the office held by Such
person: and the court before whom
such conviction is had shall, in addi-
ton to the imposition of the fine
aforesaid, order and adjudge the for
fixture of his said office. For a fail
urr or neglect Of his official duty in
the enforcement of this chapter. any
Of the city or county officers. here
In referred to may be removed by CIV
il action
cur contention in connection with that
section of the code is this: That II an.
officer fails to perform his duty with ref
creme" to that section of the code 1t ts
entirely a court proceeding. and the only
place. that can hear or determine inc
his duty With reference to that particular
paragraph is in a court of law in which
he would be charged with having done
q misdem,an"r: That was the rum rulang u
that the CHIEF Of Police. Con keefe. was
under charges in Fargo and the district
court issued a writ preventing tho City
Council from determining that question.
and the only place that can be determin,
ed is in court and not tried by a Board
which had appointed him. a Board VIII
must necessarily be more or less iaml.
liar with the facts, therefore a Board not
such as "A man is entitled to have pass
on It. And the only body that can de-
terminc that is the Court. If the pros
ecuting witness relies upon that para
graph for his case here. we contend that
he is in the wrong place. The place to
bring it is in the District Court.
Now the Charges are:
~. H.. NhihiIlS, DtliIS bISl ."u'S o"CAH
dcposcs and says upon his information
and belief, one A.. r.. Mcdonald. the
chief of police of the city of Bismarck.
Iinrleig,! cGun'y;; NGrtn Da * R;s while MI:
and during his present term of office as
chief Of police Of said city of Bismarck
has been guilty Of malfeasance and non
feasuncc in office in the said city Of Bis
marck in that he has been guilty of the
violation of the provisions of Section
1857 of the 1905 Revised Codes of the
state Of North Dakota, while knowing of
the violations of the prohibitory law re-
lating to the sale and keeping for sale
OF Intoxicating liquors in the said city
of bismarck. he has refused and failed
to notify the states attorney OF SAID
ti"ns Of the said prohibitory law in the
said city of Bismarck us required by
said Section ?367:' -.
that this Chief of Police has failed neg
lcctcd or refused to give such information
that he has? One of the best and one
of the most important witnesses in his
attorney Of this county. and it cannot be
disputed to YOU gentlemen that he told
YOU that he had many and FREQUENT con-
We So mnion win Mr t Mcn Hh!GI OF M,s p1f rns am N
frank with him and showed no evil
dcnce at all of withholding or attempting
or refusing to give him any information
that he had.
'.That upon the Information and be-
lief of %affiant,, said A.. r.. Mcdonald,
chief Of police Of the city of Bismarck;
North Dakota. while chief of police of
of said city of Bismarck. and during his
present term of office as chief of police
of the said city of Bismarck. has fire.
uucntcd resorts and places in the said
city of Bismarck where at the time in.
toxicating liquors We're unlawfully sold
kept for sale to his own knowledge
and where at such times he drank n
,oxicatins liquor that at the time was
kept for sale and sold contrary to the
laws Of the state of North Dakota
Where is there Il word Of testimony
in this case. Gentlemen. that Chief OF
Police Mcdonald was present where he
knew Intoxicating liquors were kept for
sale in violation Of the law? Mr.. Wat
kinS tells YOU of one instance where the
Chief was present where no liquor was
sold. where a man was there intoXicat-
ed. but from all appearances might have
got his intoxicating liquors some other
place, but certainly lone was sold there
at that time; that the chief took q drink,
and what the Chief took was lemonade.
The testimony of the three Doys was
that perhaps Mr.. Mcdonald may have
of the boys-in the Breslow store. Tlat
will be argued a little later. If that was
true. there was no evidence there to the
Chief that liuuor was being kept there
sold for the purpose of violating the
prohibition law. Now | take 1t that a
Chief Of Police is no different Il the
average American citizen and we car
all be thankful that under the present
condition of our statutes it is not a crime
it never will be, if a man so desires.
Tho fact that n man iS elevated tn tho