Sacramento daily record-union., 1888-12-11
THE BIRMINGHAM AFFAIR.

THE BIRMINGHAM AFFAIR.
Assuming the statements of Sheriff and
Chief of Police to be correct regarding the
riot at Birmingham, Ala, they must be
held to be justified, notwithstanding the
order they gave to fire upon the people,
the terribly effective volley that followed
and the killing of some innocent people
The Sheriff had prisoner in his charge
against whom the crime of murder was
laid. A large body of citizens assembled
about the Jail. The attitude and express
sion of the crowd led the officers to believe
that the Jail was TO be broken in and the
prisoner lynched. Both officials aver that
the order to disperse was repeatedly given;
that the crowd still advanced despite the
efforts made to induce it to yield and re-
tire. When within few feet of the Jail
shots were fired at his guards from the
crowd and the Sheriff AYERS not until then
did he give orders to fire. The result was
the killing of seven or eight citizens and
the wounding of about fifty. The people
of the city, it appears, at once turned
against the Sheriff, charging that he had
been guilty of murder, that he should have
fired over the heads of the people first, if
at all; that he had no reason to order the
firing, however, and that the gathering
was not mob. Placards were posted with
r,a+fffonc J.poo,,I.,,c- Il, \.
Sheriff for murder, and some of them call
ing for organization to take the official
and hang him, and he was finally taken
into custody for murder. Troops were
sent for and martial law declared, and at
last accounts enforced peace prevailed.
That the Mayor, Chief of Police and the
military Commander support the Sheriff is
strong evidence that he acted within the
scope of his authority and did not abuse
it. That an angry crowd advanced upon
him and refused TO retire after repeated
commands, even if it did not fire upon
him, was enough to Justify his action.
The presumption must be that he did not
resort to arms until the necessity for it
arose. Sheiif's officers are not likely to
shoot down their fellow-citizens except as
an inevitable resort in order to maintain
the law.
The Sheriff was bound to resist all at
tempts to take the prisoner, and not to
make mere feint of doing So Too many
officials in similar straits permit them
selves to be overcome and make but fee
ble show Of resistance to lynchers, Justify
ing themselves by the plea that they are
not called upon to risk their own lives, or
take those of others in order to save the
necks of murderers. But in all such cases
the officers constitute themselves Judge
and jurors. Such defense is more than
weakness-it is confession of incapacity to
appreciate the duty of a peace officer and
unfitness for the position, if it Is not flat
admission of cowardice A Sheriff is ex-
pected to put his life in peril, if need be,
10 enforce the law and resist lawlessness.
He is invested with authority for the
express purpose of standing guard to the
law and Of preserving the public peace.
The officer who stands to his post, and
when the necessity arises does not fear to
take life to maintain the integrity of his
authority, is representative in one of its
highest forms of government of the people
10y the people; he signally illustrates the
need for laws and for organized society ;
the wisdom Of orderly methods of ascer-
tanning guilt and of inflicting punishment.
Such officials should not only be COM
mended, but applauded. In this case it is
not likely that the Sheriff knew that in
nocent men were in the crowd laboring to
induce it to turn back from its unlawful
purpose. They must at least have heard
the warning and the threat to fire, and
themselves assumed the peril of remaining
with the rioters.
The people in their calmer moments
will approve the Sheriff's action and with
draw the charge of murder they have laid
at his door, recognize his courage and
clear sense of duty, and approve that which
they now condemn.