The Newberry herald. [volume] (Newberry, S.C.) 1865-1884, 1882-04-13


yantaees. For Terms, see first page.
Immunity for Revenue MUr-
derers.
The trial OF Hugh P. Kane and
three others for numbering Amos
Ladd in Pickens County in 1878,
shows how the general government
protects its revenue officers who
violate the law and shields them
from the just punishment for their
crimes. In 1878 these four men
went on a raid in search Of Red
mond. Knowing that be frequently
visited his mother-in.law, Mrs.
Iadd, they went near her house
and watched for his coming. See
ing young Amos Lsdd go into the
house and thinking it was Red
mond, they separated and crept up
stealthily, two going to the front
and two to the rear of the house.
While Lsdd was standing in the
door the party from the rear fred
upon him without provocation, and
wounded him in the arm. he then
ran out into the front yard, and was
Shere shot down ike wild beast
by the party in front, in the pres
ence OF his mother, sister and
younger brother, who were plead
ing for his life. Being asked by
the women to help carry the body
into the house they refused, and
went to Greenville and gave them
selves up. They were indicted in
the State Court, where they would
probably have received just punish
ment, but they were taken from the
State Court and tried in the United
States Court. The evidence showed
that Kane, the leader Of the raid, is
not even citizen of the United
States he came to this country in
1867 from Ireland; came to South
Carolina in 1859 as body servant
of the notorious and Infamous
Franklin J. Moses, and a few years
after was appointed on the revenue
force. He has never been natural
lied. It was proved that Difficult
ties had occurred previously in the
Ladd section, where there was a
good deal of Illicit distilling carried
on, and several scrimmages had
taken place between revenue officers
and distillers. As soon as the case
got into the United States Court it
was a foregone conclusion that the
slayers of Ladd we're in no danger !;
and the charge OF Judge Bond to
the jury that tried them seems to
have been framed with view to
their aequittal, and 20 give to rev.
enue officers full license to shoot
and kill whenever they may deem
it necessary. He said:
"If the jury find from the evidence
in this cause that the prisoners at
the bar were officers of the United
States and were present at the homi.
eide in the discharge of their duty,
which vas to arrest those there who
had been engaged in violating the in,
eernal revenue law, and that from the
peculiar perilous character of the place
and the armed resistance Heretofore
made to the officers in the discharge
of their duty in that particular place
the officers were armed, aud that the
deceased was armed alsc; and if they
shall further find from the repeated
ects of violence to the officers in that
place, and from the conduct of the
deceased when the officers approached,
they had reasonable ground to fear
that their lives were in danger, or
that they were in danger of great
bodily harm, and therefore fred snd
killed the deceased, then the homi-
eide was not murder, but was killing
in selfdefence, and it is not necessary
that some bodily harm or an attempt
at it should have been made before
party assailed defends himself, but if
be has reasonable ground te fear it, he
has right at once to defend himself
even to the extent Of homicide. The
jnry are charged that the burden of
proof of the indictment is upon the
State of South Carolina and the pris-
cners are entitled to the benefit Of
any reasonable doubt"
It is not surprising that after the
absence Of only thirty-ive minutes
the jury brought in q verdict Of
acquittal.
We would not attempt to justify
Illicit dissilling, or violation in any
way of the revenue laws; but illicit
distilling should lot justify murder.
No one but the brilliant editor Of