1923 Chicago Police Memo

[Jenn]

Comment: I think you guys will get a kick out of this 1923 letter from the
Police Chief in Chicago to the Mayor regarding the Mayor’s suggestion to
hire minorities and the last line where the Police Chief refers to ??? It’s
for real! It was dug up in the Chicago achieves.

[Lainie]

I find it very unlikely that any big-city mayor in 1923 was suggesting that his police department hire more "minorities," Italian-American or otherwise. Was that term even in common usage at the time?

[UEL]

I just did a quick google search during my lunch and came up with a couple of interesting tidbits:

- 26 May 1923 was a Saturday. Unless the commissioner was working the weekend, it does not work.
- Chicago Police Department does not have a commissioner. It has a Superintendent. They appointed recently the 50th Superintendent of Police. The Superintendent is responsible to the mayor.
- Michael Hughes was Chief Detective for the Police in the '20s, not commissioner (and was likely corrupt as he was seen with the North Side Gang at social functions).
- In 1855, the police force of the city was established as "Chicago Police Department" rather than "City of Chicago, Deparment of Police"

I think it is a phony!

[franjava]

Originally Posted by UEL

I just did a quick google search during my lunch and came up with a couple of interesting tidbits:

*snip*

I think it is a phony!

Nice google-fu!

[UEL]

Another tidbit.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=minority

The use of the term minority (to describe what we understand minorities to be) started in 1921.

Oh, and for citing the rest, Wikipedia and the Perpetual Calendar are the main sources (wiki search Chicago PD, North Side Gang)

[snopes]

Michael Hughes was Chief Detective for the Police in the '20s, not commissioner

He was police commissioner, but not until 1927.

[DaGuyWitBluGlasses]

Originally Posted by UEL

I just did a quick google search during my lunch and came up with a couple of interesting tidbits:

- 26 May 1923 was a Saturday. Unless the commissioner was working the weekend, it does not work.

-The 5 day work week was first described in 1926. (By Ford)
-Suggested by President Hoover on April 19th 1932.
-But it wasn't until 1938 that it became official, with the Fair Labor Standards Act

[Steve Eisenberg]

Originally Posted by Lainie

I find it very unlikely that any big-city mayor in 1923 was suggesting that his police department hire more "minorities," Italian-American or otherwise.

I agree. And I don't think that the police Commissioner would suggest that the force was only for Irishmen. Looking at the last names of officers who died in line of duty during this period, I would say that a majority of the Chicago force were of Irish extraction, but perhaps a third were not.

Also, if the letter was a true historical relic, it likely would have been found in the manuscript department of a scholarly library, and the person publicizing it would have provided the reference.

On the other hand, Janssen interviewed "Loyola University professor Art Lurigio, an expert on the criminal justice system and Chicago crime history," who "said that the memo 'smacks of authenticity," and Chicago Police spokeswoman Monique Bond, who "conceded the memo was 'probably' authentic but declined to comment further."

I wonder if these apparent experts compared the Michael Hughes signature on the letter with one known to be authentic.

[snopes]

Originally Posted by Steve Eisenberg

And I don't think that the police Commissioner would suggest that the force was only for Irishmen.

He doesn't. He says they've been fortunate in "being able to recruit in the main Irishmen from overseas and narrow backs" (i.e., Irish-Americans).

Also, if the letter was a true historical relic, it likely would have been found in the manuscript department of a scholarly library, and the person publicizing it would have provided the reference.

Not so at all. All kinds of historical artifacts turn up in private hands and assorted odd places. Plus, we don't even know if the person who posted it had the original in his possession, or whether he simply had a photocopy of the (possibly uncatalogued or not publicly available) original.

[Bonnie]

- In 1855, the police force of the city was established as "Chicago Police Department" rather than "City of Chicago, Deparment of Police"

Maybe, but I ought to point out that there seem to be at least several instances in Google Books from the first part of the 20th century showing that members of the police force were issuing general orders or simply using letterhead signifying "City of Chicago, Department of Police."

The use of the term minority (to describe what we understand minorities to be) started in 1921.

Just a slight comment, which doesn't affect at all your point, UEL: the document uses "minority" as an adjective, referring to Italians and Italian-Americans as "minority citizens." As with "minority" as a noun, the phrase "minority citizens" would not have been that uncommon to encounter in the 1920s.

[Hughes] was police commissioner, but not until 1927.

Hughes was out as commissioner by the end of July, 1928. Is it possible that what we're seeing as "May 26, 1923" is, in fact, "May 26, 1928?"

If that's an anemic "8" and not a "3," I don't see that there's that much, given the objections we've raised so far, to debunk the authenticity of this.

The provenance of this "resurfaced memo" does appear a little sketchy, though. The Southtown Star [Chicago], an affiliate of The Chicago Sun-Times, reported back in December, 2008 that "[w]hat [appeared] to be a photocopied version of the memo emerged on an anonymous Chicago detective's Web site last week." [1] Staff writer Kim Janssen noted,

On the Web site, the name of which can't be reprinted here because of its profane nature, the memo spurred some discussion among cops about its historical relevance and how prejudicial attitudes have evolved on the police force. Who found the memo and why it was posted aren't clear.

Naturally, it would be interesting to know where this came from and whether there exists a more pristine copy that would help us clarify the date. (Not to mention, what's up with some of the elements on the letterhead itself?)

On the other hand, Janssen interviewed "Loyola University professor Art Lurigio, an expert on the criminal justice system and Chicago crime history," who "said that the memo 'smacks of authenticity," and Chicago Police spokeswoman Monique Bond, who "conceded the memo was 'probably' authentic but declined to comment further."

Bonnie "one town that won't let you down" Taylor

[1] News; Pg. 9; 8 December 2008.

[Bonnie]

Originally Posted by Bonnie

Is it possible that what we're seeing as "May 26, 1923" is, in fact, "May 26, 1928?" If that's an anemic "8" and not a "3," I don't see that there's that much, given the objections we've raised so far, to debunk the authenticity of this.

Well, there goes that theory: Dever served as mayor from 1923 to 1927.

By the way, the "web site, the name of which can't be reprinted here because of its profane nature," is this blog.

-- Bonnie

[snopes]

Well, there goes that theory: Dever served as mayor from 1923 to 1927.

Is it possible that Dever still had some rapport with the Chicago P.D. (in an unofficial or other professional capacity) even after his term as mayor was up, and the letter does date from 1928 but reflects an honorific usage of his former title? (Similar to the form expressed here, even though the use of the word "mayor" isn't advocated.)

[Bonnie]

I think we have to consider that as a possibility, but -- as you've suggested -- that all hinges on this document's dating to 1928.

So, does the "3" in the list of three items in the letter look to be essentially the same as what's shown as the last digit in the date? (Perhaps it's easier to look at the copy on the blog.) Hard to tell with a poor photocopy, I think.

-- Bonnie

[Gayle]

That signature sure looks like it was done in ballpoint pen.