With the rapid growth in population of cities and mixture of peoples resulting from heavy immigration, the problem of policing became increasingly complex. The night watch was not equal to its responsibilities under such conditions. Loosely organized, untrained, poorly disciplined, without good esprit de corps, the watch was held in low repute by the public. Employment on the watch was determined quite generally on the basis of political partisanship. A day force was created in New York which numbered only 16 regular men in 1844 and 1o8 special Sunday officers. In addition to these there were employed at that time about ioo mayor's marshals and 34 constables, two of whom were elected to serve for each of the 17 wards of the city. The night watch consisted of more than i,ioo men. A day watch was created in Philadelphia in 1833 and one for Cincinnati in 1842. The existence of two independently controlled police forces, one for day and the other for night, led inevitably to friction.
The New York State legislature enacted, in 1844, a law pro viding for a consolidated "day and night police." This action forms the basis of what is known as modern police organization in the United States. Police forces were consolidated and re organized under a single executive head during the next few years in Boston, Philadelphia, Chicago, New Orleans, Baltimore, Newark and Providence. Even of ter these reorganizations the police were for a time without distinctive uniform and it was not until 1856 that the police forces in New York and Philadelphia adopted a standard uniform. The development of municipal police forces in the United States from this time on was, with a few exceptions, accompanied by a considerable degree of experimentation in respect to the fashioning of administrative control. Police organi zations frequently were made the focus of political manoeuvring. Short terms of office for heads of police departments and, in many cases, for the lower offices and even the rank and file were the evil products of this political change. At first the common council of cities shared with mayors in the appointment of the police personnel and direction of their work. Later the mayor came to exercise a larger share of the control. About 1895 the civil service principle was widely adopted as a remedy for merely political changes.
On the administrative side, the control of the police organiza tions in earlier days was generally vested in a board of police commissioners ranging from three to four in number. These boards were usually appointed by the mayor, sometimes subject to the approval of the common council. It was held to be de
sirable to have bipartisan control of police affairs in order to guard against domination by one party and the board form offered an opportunity for such a party representation. In a num ber of instances legislation was passed which took the appointing from the mayor and lodged it with the governor of a State. Gen erally, however, these moves were held to be in violation of the principle of local home rule. New York, Chicago, Detroit and Cleveland tried and abandoned the State control plan. In 1929, State control over appointment of the police commissioners is found in Boston, Baltimore, St. Louis, Kansas City and St. Joseph, Mo. There is no attempt at inspection of standards of police service by the State nor does the State contribute any moneys to the service. The only benefit expected from State control is that the governor will perhaps appoint administrators free from local political obligations.
After 1900 a wide-spread change in the form of municipal government was brought about in cities of the United States. The commission form of government provides a commission of from five to seven men elected to manage municipal affairs, both legislative and executive. Under this arrangement, one of the elected commissioners is designated as director of public safety, having under his immediate charge police and fire admin istration and sometimes other more or less related functions. A chief of police serves as executive head of the police force under supervision of the director. Important cities having this form of government are Buffalo, Newark, New Orleans, Omaha, St. Paul and Portland, Ore. Unfortunately it does not guarantee exclusion of politics or permanent tenure.
In more recent years an improvement over commission govern ment has come with the adoption of commission-manager charters. Under this scheme the commission serves as a local legislative body and appoints a manager who assumes entire charge of ad ministering municipal departments. The manager in turn appoints a chief of police and all recruits to the police service generally in accordance with civil service regulations. The police have bene fited almost without exception by this change. Among the larger cities having the commission-manager plan are included Cleve land, Cincinnati and Dayton in Ohio, Rochester, N.Y., and Norfolk, Va. In all some 30o cities and towns have adopted the city manager plan. In New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, De troit, San Francisco and hundreds of other cities, the police are under control of the mayor and his appointees.