The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-02-03
THE LIMIT OF AUTHORITY
JUDGE HAMMOND EXPLAINS A LoNG
ABUSED POLICE POWER.
His Charge to the Jury In the Case off.
N. Harris, Who Asked for Damages
from a Railroad for False Arrest and
Imprisonment by Detective.

suspects and actual offenders without the
necessary documents. This is especially
true OF detectives the world over For
day or two past suit for damages, based
npon dis practice, has been on trial in the
United States court before Judge Ham,
mond and a jury, and terminated yester-
day in verdict for the plaintiff, awarding
him 5000. The charge OF Judge Ham
mond 10 the jury is therefore timely
document, and II is given in full:
III Harris VS. the Louisville, New orleans and
Texas Railroad company and J NJ. Edwar,k.-ln
the Circuit Court OF the United States, February
2, lsSs.
Gentlemen OF the Jury--It Is not the
least doubtful, on the facts Of this case,
that an enormous outrage has been com
mitted against the plaintiffs right OF per-
sonal liberty. That which distinguishes
our Anglo-Saxon civilization most OF all is
itsabsoute guaantyto every citizen against
arbitrary arrest. The only faith which he
can have in that guaranty comes from his
reliance on the ministers OF the law to
enforce IT, His only remedy short OF that
individual redress by combat, which the
law denies him. Is the verdict OF jury
against the wrong1oer, and that verdict
you cannot withhold il we have the wrong
door here.
No language OF mine can adequately OK
press the Just Indignation which every
->-English speaking judge and juror must
feel at the recital OF such methods as the
detective Anthony confesses to have
taken about this arrest, even II they had
been taken against Mccall the real cul-
prit whom he was seeking. His auda-
cious expression upon the witness stand
- tI.nt ftoaIl iron " nc ha
called the manacles with which he bound
the plaintiff, was the best reliance for
producing that ''friendliness' of dispo-
sition Of his victim, of which he boosted
as a result Of his skill in this case, shows
that lac il as cruel in his instincts as he is
bunging in his work; that he is incompe-
tent and incapable OF approaching the legal
rights Of those whom he may be called
upon To arrest In the course OF his employ
ment. and that he is thoroughly reckless
OF the limitations imposed by law upon
one engaged in making arrests is demon
straied Dy the facts OF this case. DE
tcctiyc bureaus, detective agencies anc
detective agents are useful instrumental
titles in the pursuit OF criminals, anC
every citizen may resort to them as DC
casion NAV require for that purpose
They deserve and receive ut the hand
OF intelligent courts encouragement IN ina
work and protection, ms far rs need be
= from the natural human prejudice agains
their craft. But this treatment presup
noses intelligence. humane consideration
of common fairness OF conduct toward nc
cusc,l persons, and, above all, scrupulou
care ior legal rights rs against arbitrar
arrest. The wickedncss OF any other oor
duet on their part is always rcbuked b
conrts and iuri,r Afbitrariness Of metho
Is not challenged ~ II should be, bu
whenever il l., the courts apply the rem
edy unless they are themselves rccklessl
arbitrary and disrcgarlful of the trad
tiopal and constitutional rights OF mel
born into the privileges OF our race oil ire'
men.
Now. how was Il hcp2 A freeman wa
arrested without complaint according
law. without the warrant OF law or any 80
OF preiense 81 legal procedure; was d
tainc,l without authority OF any magl
tracy. was locked up IN cell, withol
commitment or any other process, or m
prctensc Of any; and was hurried away
another state without legal arrest for III
Uunyo~c. or amy purpose, In irons, to III
nj the ,.nd that he was not tho ms
wanted. that there was no accusaii'
against him, legally preferred or othS
pi~e AMI that - far as this pro
shows the only justification for the :
rest MAS that hc had travelled on y
same steamboat upon which the real q
prit wu- supposed 90 have travelled. ~
stupi,l detective had not the excuse OF Z
fliehic,i resemblance of the two men
earh other. hut II he had taken the rag
man his proceeding was none the les OF
ragcous, and was 10 arbitrary and illel
thai the fact oi his being in pursuit ol
felon should hardly mitigate the wro
done 10 the rights OF freemen by VIII
disregard OF the privilege OF exempti
from all arrest, except by due process
Law, which means an accusation made
for, n propcr tribunal aud n written VI
rant authorizing thc arrest, uni
h s,nav lie that under circu
stance, not pretended here, th
may hc q temporary detention unu
magistrate may he reached. In such ca
n n the duty " the arrcsting party 10 ca
his prisoner Immediately before MAJ
tnic ui lawful competency for that p
rose 10 eecns.. him there according 20
iorm- If law and obtain the ncccss
maristcnal sanction for any further Diet
tion. This temporary proceeding. with
prVions warrant, can only be resortc'
where there u an urgent necessity ior
cceding without the delay Of procuring
warmth beforehand, nnd TIE uel'nhoh
only Inst long enough 10 bring the priSo
bel,,rc the magistrate Cor proper inqu
Their, VAS not the least excuse here
any departure iruin the rgular met
OF proceeding. II the plaintiif, or
real ,ulpri Who was wanted had u
"locaieI.m a. this detective thought
repo,,cd him la he, nothing WIS ca
tl,an to have gone before the magisiF
made The accusation on oath, and ha'
procurtsl the warrant proceeded 10
srr,-i, This not being done the NJ
was unlawful. 80, II being other
nrrStt be- was not immediately u
before n magistrate and accused that
unlawful The arrcsiing officer cn'
Iock np aud dctain the prisoner 10
his convenience for further Inquiry,
by The prisoner's consent can this he q
Ilc must bc taken before magistrau
his protection there, aud only by the
tion II that magistrate can he be de,a
either with ~ without his consent. !
In no condition % consent freely Q
bind himself by n waiver Of bis rights
celi under the protection Of The magisi
IIs Il entitled 10 that protection, aud
out II his detention cannot be la~i
ever lac chooses 10 challenge
Ieealitvo the arrest. His consent
mitigate the damages, 70
thor, Ia a nominal amount, II III
s..lii...,t .na haa knowledup OF hia 2