The Princeton union. [volume] (Princeton, Minn.) 1876-1976, 1879-10-08
THE PITTSBURGH RIOT.

inc supreme Court Decides tho County
" Responsible for the Losses Sustained "
Salient Points In the Decision. .e
P1TrsBURaH, Oct. 6.--An important de-
cision Of the supreme court bearing on the
riot losses in this city was rendered here to-
day. The court is of the opinion, and SO de-
cides, that Alleghahy county is liable. The
opinion, written by Justice Paxson, covers
thirty-seven large pages, is very comprehen-
sive and expresses the views Of the entire
bench, with the exception of Justice Sterrett,
who didn't, sit on the argument, and of
the vol! new Justice Green, who
will i not take his ,a seat until
November. The case ip which this decision
is rendered is the County of Allegheny,
plaintiff in error VS.. John Gibson, Son "a
Co., defendant in error. This case, with
Others, was tried in Beaver county, having
been certified there from this county, and
was decided against Allegheny county by
the Beaver court. The supreme court af-
firmed the rulings of the court below, and,
while the opinion is within in this case,
other similar cases tried at Beaver will be
governed by it. .fnss.. ,...,trrI se..-<. Il
b The document opens as follows: This is
one Of the cases brought against Allegheny
county to recover damages for property de-
stroyed by the mob during the riot of 1877.
The particular property which is the subject
of this suit consisted of sixty barrels of
whisky wholly destroyed and it's value not
disputed. Aiverdict and q Judgment were
had in favor of the plaintiffs, and. the de-
PENDANTS have removed the record to this
court for review. The question it presents
is one of grave Importance. /, The plaintiffs
have no remedy in common law. They
must recover, if at all, by virtue of the act
Of May 81, 1841; 60, 4o5. The law is here
recited. ~ -"'''.' - he
The decision says we are charged with no
duty Of vindicating the wisdom of the log
islation. It is proper to say, however, that
the principle embodied in the act is not new.
A full recital of similar acts of the English
parliament follows and the court takes up
the argument of the county, that under the
new constitution of this State, adopted in
1872, the law of 1841 is imperative. This
point, after full consideration, is decided
against the county, the court holding that
the new constitution was not intended as an
entirely new instrument, but simply as an
alteration and modification of the old con-
stitution to suit the progress of the age and
change of laws where deemed essential to
the welfare of State. g." EsHI@'55'J ''
The court decides that until such times as
the legislature may change, modify or repeal
it, the law of 1871 under all decisions isop-
erative and enabled to stand. The court
then reviews the liability of the company
under this act, the point having been made
by Allegheny county that the present case
wasn't such as was contemplated by the
trainers of the law. That it amounted to an
insurrection, : spreading through j, several
States; and further that the damage occurred
after the intervention of the State authori-
| ties. H. .'-'''1 Wy t.5S'. .'5i' t'"A's!jl@
The court says: The argument upon this
branch of the case has failed to point out
just what kind of riots were contemplated
by the trainers of the act of 1841. We are
left to infer, however, that the act was in
tended to apply only to riots where the
| number engaged is small and the damage
inconsiderable. But where is this line to be
drawn, and by whom?, Is the act to apply
| to mobs of ten persons and not to those of
| a hundred? Is compensation to he made
for broken window and denied where; the
entire building is sacked and burned? We
have been furnished with no answer to these
grave questions, which confront us instantly
OAA 0Ay 0UUCAAPV W SAVO uAAO AOI Va 4Cf4 GA0
narrow construction claimed for it. -
AS regards the Intervention Of State mill
tary the court says: We see no evidence of
any serious attempt ON the part of the local
authorities to suppress it. At the time of
its commencement a feeble attempt was
made by the, sheriff, resulting in the enroll
ment of some half dozen deputies, but there
was no proclamation calling upon the body
Of the county to come to his assistance in
preserving the public peace. No one doubts,
at this day, that if a proper effort had been
made at the proper time the mob could have
been held in check. No one doubts that it
would have been had the citizens of the
county realized that they were responsible
for the loss. But this act of the assembly,
folded away among the pamphlet laws, was
probably forgotten or overlooked even by
those who knew of it's existence. In the end
the, mob that had defed the military power
was, put down in the main by civil authori-
ties, after the citizens had been aroused by
Q sense Of common danger. They will not
tolerate the spectacle of a great city looking
on with indifference while property!to the
value Of millions is being destroyed by a
mob. To prevent just such occurrences
was one of the objects of the act, of 1941.
The fact that the State when called upon
rendered its assistance and sent portion of
its military to- the scene didn't absolve the
county from its implied obligation to pre-
serve the peace, nor from it's responsibility
for neglect Of that duty. Were it, other
wise it mightIbe to the interest of munich
pality to increase the size of tho mob. -
It was further objected that where an in
surrectlon is by reason Of its nature and ex-
tent beyond the power Of local authority to
anticipate or subdue, Q county cannot be
held liable for the loss OF property de-
stroyed during and in consequence of it.
The court decided the word s'insurrection'''
as inapplicable here II was a mob and
nothing more oTEJa, aHthH og5,r.'. gqS '5s
It provided by the eighth section of the
law Of 184l thatno person or persons shall
be entitled to the benefits of this act, if it
shall appear thatt the destruction of his or
their property was caused by his or their
illegal or improper conduct. s.,..r,., ..
The.court reviews this point of the county
ct length. It is not; pretended that the
losers did any improper act. They were
hundreds of miles away and knew nothing
Of the destruction, but it is said they are re-
'sponsible for the action of the Pennsylvania
Railroad company, their baiiees. Conced-.
ing this to- be so, for the purposes of this
case, what act of the company was'illegal or