value received may be exercised, similar economies and improved methods of reducing running costs, and similar energy in securing a reasonable return for service rendered, may be sought; similar correct principles of organization may be followed. The commission form seems to be the first earnest attempt to apply to governmental conditions the successful experience of the corporation, no less significant because first inaugurated to meet a crisis, not necessarily less substantial because adopted rapidly. The American citizen appears to believe so thoroughly in commission government for cities, not because the governing body is called a commission, nor because the plan is new; but because he is thoroughly familiar with its main principles as employed in business. In those cities where it has been tried, its introduction has been followed by sufficient financial, engineering, moral, and general civic improvement to convince him that the application of these principles to the management of municipal affairs is likely to yield better results than heretofore secured under the aldermanic form.

1 A star indicates a city not yet operating under the commission plan, though having voted to do so. The figures of population (U. S. Census, 1910) are given for those cities for which population figures are available, up to Jan. 1, 1911. Census Bulletin, Dec. 15, 1910, and later announcements.

Total-92 cities, not including Buffalo and Mt. Vernon (N. V.), and three cities in Alabama, all of which have voted favorably, but are not yet authorized to install the plan; nor Washington, D. C., and Chelsea (Mass.), which have peculiar types. Cities appearing in some previously published lists, but which upon further examination are found to have only a partial form of commission government, are Beaumont (Texas), Riverside (Calif.), Boise (Idaho), St. Joseph (Mo.), Taunton (Mass.), and several cities in Tennessee. This list is revised to Dec. 31, 1910; but the continued adoption of the plan by new cities makes any list soon incomplete.

The Organization of

of Police Forces.

By LEONHARD FELIX FULD, PH.D., NEW YORK.

Examiner of Municipal Civil Service Commission.

The police administration of our American cities is constantly being criticized. Not all of this criticism is malevolent, but much of it is engendered by motives other than that of securing a thoroughly efficient administration of the police department. Most of the policemen and superior officers of our police departments are self-respecting, honest, industrious and efficient members of the community; the number of disreputable or dishonest police officers is every much smaller than the critics of our police departments would have us believe.

On the other hand it cannot be denied that the police administration of nearly all American cities is far from satisfactory. Police commissioners are never experts; are not always men of personal integrity and are seldom interested in giving to the municipality an efficient administration of the police department. Statutes are frequently enacted by the legislature of the state which conflict with the views of the citizens of the urban communities and ordinances are sometimes passed by the aldermen of the city imposing upon the citizens petty restrictions in the conduct of their business which it is almost impossible to enforce. Not only do the police have to contend with inexperienced commissioners and impracticable statutes but they are also obliged to cope with professional politicians who must of necessity favor a lenient and lax administration of the law and who can vitally affect the happiness and sometimes the official existence of the police officer.

In the present paper an attempt will be made to lay down a few fundamental principles, the general adoption of which in this country would assist in correcting the present-day defects of our police departments. The reasons for each of these principles will be briefly stated in order that the principle itself

may be fully understood and may be made the subject of constructive criticism by those engaged in the field of municipal administration and reform.

The head of department should be a single commissioner and not a board of police. The commissioner should have a fixed term of at least ten years. He should be removable only after a trial on charges and should have the right to have his removal reviewed by the courts on a writ of certiorari.

The head of the police department is called upon to perform duties which require rapidity of action, and energy, and for which it is desirable to have a fixed and well-defined responsi

Head of
Department

bility. Such duties are best performed by a single officer. A board is better adapted to the performance of judicial duties or duties which require carefulness of deliberation, regard for all sides of the case and an impartial decision. The fact that so many American cities still cling to the board system of police administration is not an indication of any consciousness of its superiority but is due rather to the survival of an historical accident. The board system of administration is the system of municipal administration established in English cities by the Municipal Corporations Act of 1835. This system of administration was copied by American cities and has survived in many cities to the present day.

Not only is the board system of police administration bad in principle, but the bi-partisan board system is also vicious in practice. The prevention of blackmail and corruption, the repression of crime and violence, the safeguarding of life and property, securing honest elections, and rewarding efficient and punishing inefficient police service are not and cannot properly be made questions of party difference. In other words, the police force can be wisely and properly administered only upon a nonpartisan basis. Bi-partisan police boards were introduced as a party device for securing a party monopoly of patronage and spoils and for dividing them between managers of the great parties conspiring together. The question of administrative efficiency was not even considered by the legislators who introduced these bi-partisan boards. Bi-partisan boards would seem