New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1875-10-22
ARE WE GUTLTY?

l
l. We have sought to give the present
| expulsion of Republican officials po-
litical significance. q We have vilified
white people for resorting to "strong
measures to protect their property" be-
cause we censure the gin burners for
burning gins; the jayhawkers for retail
iating in the conhagration of stores; the
new courthouse men of Livingston for cap
turing the public records, and the old
courthouse men for burning the records
of property and character. If these be
not words of apprehension for thieves
and the receivers Of stolen goods, We
do not know the vocabulary. We de-
nounce all lawless men, but we de-
mand their conviction before their
punishment. The last count in our
indictment is little obscure. We
assumed the entire recovery of DR.. Saun-
ders, when it subsequently appeared that
he was in "a precarious state" Usually,
when one takes hopeful view of the con-
dition Of wounded patient he is COM
mended for his sanguine humanity. 1t is
true that witness under oath before a
Congressional committee testified that in
his opinion the financial condition of the
city was very favorable, for which he was
censured by the polite ians, who wished
it to appear, as DR.. Saun ders, as sick as
possible. We merely said some relatives
of DR.. Saunders in this city did not know
otherwise than that he was well. We
have published the bulletins of his con-
dition as we have received them, and
learn that DR.. Saunders is still suffering.
Why, when we stated common ignor-
ance, should it have been attributed
to wish 'to magnify the crime of
the men who lynched his PRISONERS ?"
This is about as charitable a sup.
position as if We should suggest that
the Pic hopes DR.. Saunders may die to
vindicate the propriety of putting his
alleged prisoners to death prematurely.
We do not think the crimes of men who
violate the law can suffer much under the
magnifying glass. But how does the Pic
know that these people were 1.-THE poison
ers'' of DR.. Saunders? There have been
instances of people banged, even after due
trial, for offenses of which it has been
afterward shown they were innocent.
This has made prudent people prefer to
have verdict of ''guilty" between them
and the possibility of reproach. The
Saviour was lynched. Neither the Roman
nor Hebrew tribunals found proof of crime
against him. In the Roman court of the
last colonial local resort Governor PLATE
washed his hands before the multitude
and said, 81 am innocent of the blood of
this just person; see you to it" And the
mob did "see to it" by taking the son of
God and lynching him with all the cir
cumstances of cowardice and barbarity.
And this has been crime of which men
have never acquitted themselves.
This murder, not merely without judi
cial sentence but after judicial decree of
acquittal, has never been expiated. It is
a bad doctrine, this murder of men upon
the dictate of popular prejudice. This
man John Gair is called ''poisoner." He
may have been, but it was an unpardona-
BILE crime against the law to take its sacred
name and Office into unlawful hands. We
neither appear as asserting his innocence,
nor are we the accusers of men for vio-
lation of law which we deplore; and it is
as absurd as it would be impossible for
the Pic to shift the issue from the offense
of poisoning, the violation of law by
lynching, from the parties defendant, and
trying the historians of the period for
their comments upon offenses which all
impartial men condemn.