The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1879-10-11

with no answer 10 these grave questions,
which confront % Instantly upon any at
tempt to give the act Of 1871 the narrow
claimed for Il"
Tho Court reviewed the evidence Of the
sympathy Of the city with the rioters, and
rebuhcd The defense that tho sending Of
State troops provoked the mob. On
this pointthe Court said:
1--WE geo no evidence Of any serious al.
tempt upon the part Of the local author.
tiles to suppress L Ut tho time Of tho com.
menCement. A feeble attempt was made
by the sheriff, resulting In the enrolment
oil sOnlG halt dozen deputies, but there
was no proclamation calling on the body
Of the county 10 come 10 his assistance III
preserving the public peace. No one doubts
10 this day that II q proper effort had been
made st the proper time the mob could
have been held In check. No Odh doubts
that Il would have been, had the citizens
Of the county realized that they were re.
spOnslle for the loss. But this act Of
Assembly, folded away among the pam.
phlet laws, was probably forgotten or
overlooked, even by those who knew Of liz
hat had ieaei military power ,VT
wa. put down In the main BY the civil
au,hOitieS, alter the citizens had been
aroused by sense Of common danger.
The law will not tolerate tho spectacle Of
great city looking on with indifference
while property 10 the value Of millions Il
being destroyed by mob. To prevent
| lust such occurrences was one Of the oh.
ecis u the act Of 1871. The fact that the
State when called upon rendered It's rs.
si-iauce, and sent q portion Of her military
n the scene, did not absOlve the county
. from Ia implied obligation to preserve the
peace, or from It's responsibility for ne.
girct u that duty. We're II otherwise, Il
might be 10 the interest Of q municipality
to increase the size Of the mob"
The Court rejected the theory Of the de-
irn,e that theIc'was an "insurrectlon,' .
holding that the violence was committed
by mob. On the question Of RESPONSE
bility, the Court said
"Itis not pretended that the losers did
any improper act. They were hundreds
Of niles away, and knew nothing OF the
destruction Of their property until IL was
accomplished. But II Is said they are 70.
sponible for the act Of the Pennsylvania
Railroad Company, their bailees. Con-
rcdHg this to be 30, for the purposes Of
this case, what act Of the company was
illegal or improper within the meaning Of
the statute? It was said the mob was fired
upon. Granted. But by whom? Not BY
the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, but
by the military sent there by the Cover
nor u the State, In response 10 telegram
from the Sheriff Of Allegheny county,
asking for troops 10 assist him In quelling
Il riot Whether the firing was ludicious
under the circumstances we arc not called
upon to say. 1t is no part in this case, Il
Is enough Tor us 10 know that whether
judlclous or otherwise, II was an act lOI
which neither the company nor the
plaintiffs are responsible. It Is said thai
the company reduced the wages Of thell
employees, and, in the face OF the dissatis
faction produced thereby, Gndeavored tC
move their trains in opposition 10 the viii
OF the mob. A more unteEAble position
than this could not well be imagined. For
some days cars loaded with freight from
distant points had been accommodating ii
the yard at Pittsburgh, by reason Of the
strike and the refusal Of the strikers Il
ALLOW them to be moved forward to theil
destination. The result was blockade
paralyEingthe business Of the country upOE
this, one Of It's greatest arteris OF CON
meEce. In such vast collection oil
freight there must have been much Of q
perishable nature. It was the duty, in
voIying legal responsibility on the par
Of the company to forward It, In dom,
SO they were but asserting legal righ
and performing legal duty which theS
owed to shippers and consignees. Thei
action was neither illegal nor imprope
under the act OF 1871"