Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1879-10-07
THE PITTSBURGH RIOT.

THE PITTSBURGH RIOT.
The Supreme Court Decides the County
Responsible for the Losses Sustained
Salient Points in the Decision.
PrTTsBuRaH, Dot. 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 Allegheny county is liable. The
opinion, written by Justice Paxson, covers
thirty-seven large pages, is very oomprehen-
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 new Justice Green, who
will not take his seat until
November. The case in which this decision
is rendered is the County of Allegheny,
plaintiff in error VS.. John Gibson, Son q
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-
frmed 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. *a
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 its value not
disputed. A verdict and 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, 1s41; 60, 4o5. The law is here
recited.
The decision says we are charged with no
duty of vindicating the wisdom of the leg
islation. 1t is proper to say, however, that
the principle embodied in the act is not new.
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 tho old con-
stitution to suit the progress of the age and
change of laws where deemed essential to
the welfare of State. ....% ..
The court decides that until such times as
the legislature may change, modify or repeal
it, the law of 1841 under all decisions is OPP
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
instruction. spreading through several
States; and further that the damage occurred
after the Intervention of the State authori-
ties. Ia. -
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 1941. 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
to mobs of ten persons and not to those of
a hundred2 Is compensation to be made
for broken window and denied where the
have been furnished with no answer to these
grave questions, which confront us instantly
on any attempt to give the act of 1941 the
narrow construction claimed for it.
AS regards the Intervention of State mill
tary the court says: We SEQ no evidence of
any serious attempt on the part of the local
authorities to suppress it. At the time of
its commencement 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 4 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 its 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
a sense of common danger. They will not
tolerate the spectacle of great city looking
on with indifference while property to the
value of millions is being destroyed by q
mob. To prevent just such occurrences
was one of the objects of the act of 1841.
The fact that the State when called upon
rendered it's assistance and sent portion of
its military to the scene didn't absolve the
county from it's implied obligation to pre-
serve the peace, nor from it's responsibility
for a neglect of that duty. We're it other
wise it might be to the interest of munich
pality to increase the size of the mob.
It was further objected that where an in
surrectlon is by reason of it's nature and ex-
tent beyond the power of local authority to
anticipate or subdue, 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. It was a mob and
nothing more. '
It provided by the eighth section of the
law of 184l that no person or persons shall
be entitled to the benefits of this act, if it
shall appear that the destruction of his or
their property was caused by his or their
illegal or improper conduct.
The1court reviews this point of the county
at 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 bailees. Conced-
ing this to be 90, for the purposes of this
case, what act of the company was illegal or
improper within the meaning of the statute?
1t was said the mob we're fired on. Granted.
But by whom? Not by the Pennsylvania
Railroad company, but by the military sent
there by the governor of the State in re-
spouse to telegram from the sheriff of
&C., ~o1 90 nsok
him in quietlug riot. Whether
the firing was judicious under the oircum-
stances we are not called upon to say. It is
no part Of this case It ia anouph for us to