Skip to main content

[In his remarks to the Police Commissioners]

image 1image 2image 3image 4cropped image 1

☞In his remarks to the Police Commisioners, on being elected President yesterday, Mr. Draper took occasion to say, that "under no circumstances is this commission to be one for partizan purposes."1 This, with similar disclaimers from sources likely to know, ought to be sufficient to inspire our Democratic fellow citizens with more confidence and lead them to believe that they are not to be swallowed up, just yet. Everybody admits that the control of the Police in both cities needed to be changed, and the systems adapted to the requirements of the people, which could only be done by the appointment of Commissioners. If these gentlemen succeed in confining the attention of the Police to their legitimate duties—the detection of criminals and the preservation of the peace—they will have accomplished a great work. At present each one is a political emissary, and here is where the shoe pinches our Democratic friends. As the people, however, do not pay policemen to instruct them how to vote, every good citizen, whatever may be his party predilections, ought to rejoice that we are about to turn over a new leaf. Our impression is that the new Police Law is destined to become very popular and the blessings will be heaped on its authors when its results are witnessed.2 So mote it be.


Notes:

1. Simeon Draper (1806–1866) was elected to the Board of Police Commissioners on April 16, 1857, but he resigned before the end of his term due to what he perceived as the over-politicization of the force's appointments. [back]

2. The Metropolitan Police Act of April 1857 was passed by the New York State Legislature in order to dissolve New York City's Municipal Police and replace them with the State-controlled Metropolitan force, overseen by a board of commissioners. This new force covered the combined areas of Manhattan, Brooklyn, Staten Island, and Westchester County and was considered controversial in scope, with some parties arguing that the Act was unconstitutional. Embedded within the Act was a series of provisions that impacted both the sale of and access to alcohol. [back]

Back to top