according to the census of 1880, a bi-partisan Board of Metropolitan Police to consist of three commissioners. The term of the commissioners was three years; but they were subject to removal at any time by the appointing board. These Boards were required to take oath that they would not remove or appoint any policeman or officer because of his political opinions. They had power to appoint a superintendent of police and all members of the police force, who were to be selected equally from the two leading political parties of the city. All appointees were to serve during good behavior, but were removable for cause by the Boards. They also had power to make general rules and regulations for the government and discipline of the force. The opponents of the bill claimed that it violated the principle of local self-government and that its main purpose was to give one political party, having a majority of the central appointing board, control over the police and a large part of the expenditures of the two leading cities of the State.3 The composition of this board did lend some color to the accusation. But the law seemed to work satisfactorily, and, excepting the provisions requiring of members a residence of three years and restricting the appointment to two political parties, its constitutionality was upheld.5

A new act was passed in 1889, creating a Board of Metropolitan Police and Fire Department in each city having 29,000 or more inhabitants. The first members of the board were elected by the General Assembly, and their successors were to be appointed by the mayor of each city. They

1 The only cities in this class were Indianapolis and Evansville.

2 Laws, 1883, pp. 89-91.

3 Brevier Legislative Reports, 1883, p. 234.1

The Governor belonged to one party and the other members belonged to the party dominant in the General Assembly.

'The State ex rel. Law v. Blend et al., 121 Ind. Rep'ts, pp. 514-523.

were to be selected from the two leading political parties. They had complete control of the police and fire departments. Without delay two cases came before the Supreme Court, and within sixty days after its enactment the law was declared void on the following grounds: (1) It granted special privileges and immunities by creating a residence qualification and prescribing a political test; (2) It placed the police and fire departments of certain cities and the property connected therewith under the exclusive control of a board elected by the Legislature, and thereby denied the communities the right of local self-government; (3) the power to make such appointments was an executive function which could not be exercised by the Legislature.3 In one decision the courts pointed out with emphasis that the right to maintain a fire department was an element of self-government which was vested in the people of the municipalities;* that the provisions of the statute relating to the management of that department were void; and that, inasmuch as these provisions were so intermingled with, and dependent upon, the other provisions, the whole act fell. With practically the same reasoning the Supreme Court has recently declared invalid a later law authorizing the Governor to appoint a

1 Laws, 1889, p. 222-5.

The court admitted that if the act related alone to the management of the police department a different question would have been presented, p. 437.

Evansville v. State ex rel. Blend, 118 Ind. Rep'ts, pp. 435, 436-7, 440-7; and State ex rel. Holt v. Denny, Mayor, 118 Ind. Rep'ts, pp. 457-467, 469, 475, 478-80.

* State ex rel. Holt v. Denny, Mayor, 118 Ind. Rep'ts, pp. 473-5.

Another law of the same year (Laws, 1889, pp. 247-254), empowering the General Assembly to appoint in certain cities a board of public works and affairs, with exclusive control over the streets and other thoroughfares, public buildings, and the supplying of water and light, met the same fate. (The State ex rel, Jameson v. Denny, Mayor, 118 Ind. Rep'ts, pp. 389, 394, 400.)

See report of the decision in The Indianapolis News for Feb. 26, 1902, p. 1.

board of public safety for the city of Fort Wayne, with exclusive control over matters relating to the fire and police departments. The law of 1883 was amended in 18912 so as to avoid the unconstitutional features. In the opinion upholding its validity the court more clearly set forth the theory that "in providing for the appointment of officers connected with the constabulary of the State, there is not an invasion of the right of local self-government." "A municipal corporation is not clothed with a vested right in a public office, nor indeed does it possess a vested right in public property." The party which at first opposed this centralization of authority has since extended it, until now the law applies to all cities having a population exceeding 10,000 inhabitants with the exception of Indianapolis, Evansville, Fort Wayne, Terre Haute and South Bend. The success of the experiment is indicated by the words of Governor Matthews: "Their [the metropolitan police boards'] management of the police affairs of their respective cities has given such eminent satisfaction that there seems to be no disposition to return to the old system."

This centralization of control over the police of cities did not remedy some of the evils which resulted from the lack of control over the sheriffs and constables. In cases of riots or mobs, threatening violence to persons or property, the sheriff alone had authority to request the Governor to send militia to quell the disturbance. There were instances where 1 Laws, 1901, pp. 142-8.

3 Ibid., 1891, pp. 90-2. Not more than two members were to be of the same political party. Indianapolis was not included within its scope.

'State ex rel. City of Terre Haute v. Kolsem et al., 130 Ind. Rep'ts, p. 437. *Laws, 1893, pp. 284-5; 1897, pp. 90-96; 1901, pp. 24–5.

"Fourteen in number. The exclusion of the five chief cities from the operation of the law seems to be inconsistent; but non-partisanship in the management of the police departments is secured by the provisions of their special charters.

Message of Governor Matthews, 1895, House Journ., 1895, p. 58.

sheriffs, influenced by partisan, friendly or other considerations, were dilatory or neglectful in the performance of their duties. The Governor, therefore, recommended the enactment of laws enabling him in his own name to institute in the courts, actions to enjoin and prevent the commission of any acts against property, public peace, morals, health or public policy, or in violation of any statutes; empowering him to suspend for a limited period any sheriff or other executive officer of the counties or cities who should fail or refuse to perform the duties enjoined upon him by law, and to appoint temporarily some person in his place, the Governor being required to report the facts to the General Assembly; and authorizing him to apply to the circuit court of the county for the removal of any sheriff or other executive who should persistently fail, neglect or refuse to perform the duties required of him by law. A bill of such a purport passed the House, but failed to come to a vote in the Senate, in spite of a special message from the Governor urging its passage. However, authority was granted the Governor to send, upon his own information, the militia into any county where a disturbance might prevail; and the right to call upon the Governor for the militia was given to the mayor of any city, a court of record sitting in any city or county, or any judge thereof, as well as to the sheriff.3 This makes it less likely that the peace and property of a community will be exposed to mob violence because the sheriff may sympathize with the unruly element.

It is not merely in times of excitement and turbulence that the State suffers on account of the absence of central control over the police. Annually it loses a considerable revenue through the evasion of the laws requiring a license

1 Message, House Journ., 1895, pp. 33-4.

House Journ., 1895, pp. 390 and 794; Sen. Journ., 1895, pp. 872 and 1072. Laws. 1895, p. 116, sec. 116.

for the sale of liquors. One influential paper' has estimated that "there are more unlicensed drinking places in the State than licensed." It is the duty of the peace officerstown and city marshals, policemen, sheriffs and constables -to enforce the liquor laws;3 but their indifference or connivance gives opportunity for numerous violations of them. It has been suggested that there should be created the office of State license inspector, with authority either in person or by deputy to visit any place where liquor is sold and demand the exhibition of the license. Such an officer would be free from the local and personal influences which seduce local officers from an impartial enforcement of the law.

An even more radical departure is favored by numerous members of the State Municipal League. In brief, they advocate the appointment of constables by the township advisory boards. These officers should be under the supervision of a county superintendent of police, who would be superintendent or chief of police in the county seat. County and township police officers should be under the general supervision of a State Superintendent of Police appointed by the Governor and subject to removal for cause. This officer would have only advisory power over the local police forces. It is claimed that this intimate connection between all the police agents of the State would overcome the indifference of local officers, maintain public order more easily, facilitate the capture of criminals, make private detective associations+ unnecessary, remove some pretexts for white-cap organizations, drive criminals out of the State, and eventually would effect a considerable saving in public expenditures. 5 These changes would not institute an infringement upon the rights

1 The Indianapolis News.

2 Drug stores, grocery stores and open bars.

Laws, 1895, p. 251, sect. 7.

* See page 308 above.

'See Indianapolis News, Oct. 11 and 19, 1899.