The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1886-04-21
TIE MILITARY RIOTS

In this country in case of ditturb-
ance we are rational enough t. try all
other accessible means before calling
in the aid OF the military. That this
hesitation is rational ia proved by ex-
perience elsewhere, where less OF that
hesitation is felt. From an article in
the London Globe now before ue we
see that the House Of Lords, in dis.
cussion on the subject, found it to be
one of no small difficulty. Eminent
lawyers and military dignitaries in the
House took part in the discussion, and
the ending of it left the matter as per
picked So before. It is usually con-
sidered necessary to read the riot act
before acting against a riotous mob,
bat 1t was asked whether, if in the
presence of the military mob pro-
ceeded to violence and pillage, the
former were to allow the outrage
to proceed until the presence Of
Justice Of Peace to read the riot
act could be procured2 What consti-
tutes state of things that justities
the military to resort to force aaains; q
mob? was question that proved
equally insoluble. The officer in
command must exercise hi' own judg-
ment, and therefore the violence re-
sorted to by the military would be gov
erned more by the temper and dispo-
sition of the military officer than by
the actual needs of the occasion. What
is decided by him in time OF peril and
excitement can scarcely be brought
under legal requirement like the de-
liberite judgment of magistrate.
Lord Fitzgerald stated that the dis
elimination is no. only required of the
officer, but every private in the ranks
is bound to exercise it under penalty OF |
being brought to trial. High English
legal authority lays it down that "if an
officer gives an unwise order, or one
that ought not to have been given, aud
that could not be justified, the soldier,
il he acted upon it, was liable to the
civil tribunals and might be brought
to justice" Here comes gu. the Gu
rioua fact that IL the soldier disc Jeys
the order he Ia subject to court.mar.
tial Lord Napier, who participated
in the debate, mentioned the case of
r sentinel who shot man that per-
sisted in forcing his pcs after dark.
He was found guilty of manslaughter.
II he had permitted his post to be
Iorced he would hsvs received severe
military punishment. The British
soldier is evidently not to be onvied.
The Lord Chancellor, in summing up
he debate, eaid both officers and
soldiers, to certain extent, act upon
heir own peril. Thus the fear cf
yoing too far or not far enough para
Yves both officers and men, aud in q
Ease during the recent London
lots the military stood as spec
ators of the outrages, afraid to
lepart from the strict letter OF their
Instructions Whatever may bepeculiar
n the English regulations, We see in
hem care for human life that Is
trustworthy, The military are not
allowed to give way to passion OF to
udden impulse, of fear; they caunot
hoot down promiscuously and with
'ut judgment without being liable to
,ivil investigation, and, if need be-, to
Something Of this eau
ion, of this holding Of the military to
responsibility, is needed amo1g our
selves, as was shown in theca of the
East St. Louis shooting. 1t the mill
AIRY, in subduiug riot, themselves run
INTO excess, their conduct ought to be
investigated, aud, necessary, pun
be awarded.
-