, 1870-05-31
THE SPRINGFIELD HOMICIDE

l 1}e1tnent QueStlon, whether there is M
more effective way Of arresting alleged
criminals at Springfield than killing them
With bucEshot? The enforcement Of Iepa
process is everywhere held to be essential
and, if the officers Of the law be resisted, The
Law must be asserted, even to the takinp q oi
life. But the taking of life is generally
held to be measure only of the last resort,
IN civilized communities, and force, the
power of numbers, patient e1poatulation
! even, and strategy, are always tried and ex-
| hausted before the citadel Of life is broken
| into. We do not remainder to have eve.
heard before of such case as that at
Springfield on Saturday. A writ il issued
for the arrest of man guilty of breach Of
the peace and he successfully resists its
service, putting at defiance the police and
the Sheriff and his posse with bolt and bar,
hatchet, and pistol It would seem oyi-
dent that to hnve captured the alleged
criminal, would have been attended with
some risk, but the accepted theory is that
it is precisely to take such risks that force
il provided, and extreme measures, in case
Of necessity, are authorized. II the theory
Of the law were, that there should be no
risk, and, therefore, no resort to force, then
It would be only necessary to peacefully
notify one charged with crime, that his ap-
pearanee is desired before magistrate, and
if he refuses to obey ne must take the con-
sequences Which might possibly follow.
Bancroft seems to have accepted the first
theory, and to have resisted the officers of
the law, expecting, Of course, to have to
fight for his life. But the second theory,
apparently, WAS that Of Sheriff Robbins,
who did not conceive TINT he was under
any obligation to incur any personal danger
that the majesty Of the law
might be asserted Accordingly, he
declines to use the force at his command to
break into Bancroft house, disarm, and az
rest him, in spite Of his armed defiance, but
leaves him in fancied security. Had this
fancied security in which the criminal WAS
left been only piece of strategy whereby
the Sheriff might have stolen upon the
criminal and taken him at unawares, the act
would have been both wise and merciful on
the part Of that officer. But it seems to Us
to wear quite another aspect, when the OBJ
ject WIS to throw Bancroft off his guard,
not that he might be captured, but that he
might be killed Bancroft was unquestion-
ably wrong in resisting the law, and, If his
obedience could only be compelled
through his death, then, certainly, to kill
him. in the act Of resistance, would have
been entirely justidable, But at the time
of the killing he WAS not in the act of
resistance, but WIS quietly playing the vio-
lin, at window-an attitude that inevita-
bly, suggests the possibility Of his arrest
by little management We do not see
that the course pursued differs very much
from the ordinary appeal to Lynch Law.
The duties Of Sheriff are executive,
not judiciary he is to bring to justice, that
a criminal may be tried, and not to decide
upon his criminality and affx the extreme
penalty Of the law. He has no power Of
life and death o.--z-a - .L- ---- ---a - t1.e
act Of immediate resistance to his duty and
power of simple arrest. # q Sheriff may
shoot man whom he has failed to arrest
few hours after his failure, without repeat
ing the attempt at arrest, he may shoot him
few weeks or months after, without at
tempting to capture him. Is not this
dangerous power to lodge in the hands Of
any ofhcer7 Is not the due process of law,
in such case, altogether wanting? The
proper execution of the Law is as much to
be insisted upon as violation of the law is
to be guarded against If an alleged Grim
f7p1 c11rrncCf.,f1v =. SxGu