Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1890-02-01
The Faunce Case.

We were questioned few days ago as to
the nature Of the FAUScE outrage at Aber-
deem. Mississippi, which outrage has at
tracted so much attention. AS the affair
has called forth several speeches in the
United States Senate. as well as many ar
ticles in the public journals of the dav, and
as there has been made here no clear state
ment of the facts or the law of the case.
we will, with the assistance of the Chicago
Tribune, relate the whole story.
HENRY T. FAuNcE is citizen of Indiana.
On the day Of Mr.. DAvIs's funeral, he was
working as q timer upon the roof of a
Federal building in Aberdeen, Miss. Some
person or persons very unjustly and alto
gether unjustifably had stretched across q
street o rope bearing the effigy of Hon.
REpFrrLp PRocroR. Secretary or War.
Upon the latter was the inscription, RID.
PRocroR, Traitor" Accidentally, 30 FAUNcE
claims, but intentionally and insultingly in
the opinion of his prosecutors, FAuNoE let
fall one end of the saidrope, thus designedly
throwing down the effigy of Mr.. PRooroG,
or misplacing it, as the authors of the out
rage believed. The Chicago Tribune says
that for this act FAUSoE was seized by the
crowd and terribly beaten. laccrated. and
almost blinded; was dragged before a
Justice of the Peace and heavily fined, and
was subsequently, driven out of the city,
and has not been heard from since.
Our Chicago contemporary is surprised
that the Missississippi senators should
claim that the perpetrators of this outrage
cannot DO punished except by the State of
Mississippi, and that there is no power in
the Constitution to redress the wrongs Of
the victim OF administer any penalty on
those who assaulted him. The Tribune
then seriously quotes that clause of the
Federal Constitution which provides that
"the citizens Of each State shall be entitled
10 all the privileges and immunities of citi-
xens Of the several States" and proceeds 10
argue an follows:
under this provision Mr.. Faunce had
the same rights In Mississippi as any citi-
zen of that State. If citizen of Missis-
Bippi has the right 20 call upon the State
for redress for an outrage of this kind,
then he also has the same right. II there
r. no power TO punish the miscreants who
infictod this injury upon him. then equally
had he been citizen af Mississippi"
Just so. Now inquire what would be
the rights Of citizen Of Mississippi in a
case similar 10 that of FAUsoE's. and you
will learn that the Mississippi senators
were aud are right. The offence was
against tho peace aud dignity of the
Commonwealth" of Mississippi, and not
against tho peace and dignity OF the
United States. It was an offence which
violated no Law of the United States, and
an offence for the punishment Of which
Congress has no right and no power TO
provide. II the Tribune will read the opin-
ion Of tho United States Supreme Court in
the celebrated slaughter-house cases, that
paper viii be better qualified than IL now
y to discuss the point which II has raised
In behalf Of FAuxox. In that opinion Mr..
Justice NuLxs, after quoting from the
Federal Constitution the clause providing
That the citizens Of each State shall be
sntitiVd 10 I'll the privileges and immuni-
ties II citizens IN the several States"
bayss
aIts fthe elauss just quoted sole pur-
pnno w6s 70 declare 70 tho several states
7kn4 whatever those rights, ~ you grant or
6otatlish them y your own scstlzens, o. as
70 Hmif o. qualify or impose festrlctlons
q MR. nxorciee, the satne. neither more
~ ~, ohsll BE- the measure ot the rights
RI Gfllins q 0thef States within your jnss
w 4 voallbe W ysinnat allow o.