Pittsburg dispatch. [volume] (Pittsburg [Pa.]) 1880-1923, 1892-07-07
LAW Of THE RIOT.
Application Of Sections Max.
ing the County Liable :.
for the Damages.
VIEWS OF THE LAWYERS.
One Thinks Members of the Firm
Could Be Held for Murder.
THE RIGHT TO BEAR WINCHESTERS.
Being on Navigable River Does Not Con-
Germ the T. S. Government
OPINIONS OF THE COUNTY OFFICERS
VIEWS OF THE LAWYERS.
THE RIGHT TO BEAR WINCHESTERS.
Being on a Nayigable River Does Not Con-
Germ the Z. S. Government
OPINIONS OF THE COUNTY OFFICERS

A riot act for Philadelphia county was
passed May 81, 1S4L By the act of March
90, 1S49, its provisions were extended to AL
legheny county. Section of the act is as
follows:
In all cases where any dwelling house or
other building or property, real or personal,
has been or shall be destroyed within the
county of Philadelphia, in consequence of
any mob or riot, it shall be lawful for the
person or persons interested in and owning
such property TO bring suit against the said
county where such property was situated,
and being for the recovery of such damages
as he or they sustained by reason of the de-
struction thereof and the amount which
shall be recovered in said action shall be
paid out of the county treasury, on war
rants drawn by the commissioners thereof
who are hereby required to draw the same
as soon as said damages are finally fixed and
ascertained.
When Damages are Not CoIIectable
Section s-No person or persons shall be
entitled to the benefits of this act, If it shall
appear that the destruction of his or their
property was caused by his or their illegal
or improper conduct. nor unless it be made
to appear that he or they, upon the
knowledge had of the intention or attempt
a mob for such purpose, and sufficient time
intervening gave notice thereof TO a con-
stable alderman or Justice of the peace
or to the Sheriff of the county
and if the Sheriff upon the receipt of such
notice, or upon knowledge of such attack or
intended riot, or disturbance, shall neglect
Or refuse to perform his duties in the
premises, he or they, so neglecting or refus-
ing, shall be liable for the damages done to
hn d<,ft tI,a
etc.
In the case of Allegheny county versus
Gibson, suit that was the result of the
riots in 1877, Judge Paxson defines what is
meant by illegal and improper conduct.
"Just what is meant by improper con-
duct" says the Judge, 'fs a nice question.
We are not without rulings in our own State
and elsewhere. In Donoghue versus Phila-
delphia Judge Gibson placed his rulings
on the legal rights of the owners of the
property.
Introducing Arms Into Property.
"He saws that it was justifable to intro
duce men and arms into the house as the
exercise Of a treeman's privilege, whether
there was the apprehension of danger or
not" It would seem to be clear that in
order to defeat recovery upon this ground,
for property destroyed by mob, the inn
proper conduct must have been the proxi-
mate cause of the destruction. In Lavery
versus Phiiadelphia county Justice Ser
geant said: SIN order to debar a person |
from the remedy provided by the act of |
1S41, it must be made to appear, in the |
words of the act, that the destruction of his |
property was caused by his illegal or i'm |
proper caEapct -, Ia New York the statute |
reaaasf mo person shall be entitled to |
recover, if it shall appear upon the trial |
thereof that such destruction was occasioned |
or in any manner aided, sanctioned, or per-
mitted by the carelessness or negligence of
such person"
Among lawyers yesterday the legal as
pect of the riot at Homestead was the only |
topic of conversation. 1t was argued pro |
and CON- and opinions on both sides were /
freely given. Some attorneys took the
ground that the county would be held re-
sponsibe, while others claimed the iron
firm had taken the law into its own hands
and would have to stand the consequences.
The sympathies Of the majority, however,
were with the men, and in some
quarters the individuals of the firm
were severely denounced. Considerable
stress was laid on the conduct of the com-
pany, and whether or not its action in send
ing armed men to the works was not t'im-
proper and illegal conduct" under the act.
With many the only question was which
side fired the first shot. This will probably
never be known.
Open to a Charge of Murder.
c. c. Dickey was the most advanced in
his views. He said the riot was a great
outrage and he thought charge of murder
or manslaughter would be sustained against
the members of the firm. Mr.. Dickey offers
his services to the men free to institute
criminal proceedings against the owners of
the works.
George W. Guthrie is tariff Democrat,
and he held that the company's property
was not private, bnt public to certain ex-
tent The firm is protected by tariff act
passed bv Congress, and this puts it under
to the people, especially its
workmen.
George Shiras, Jr., thought the riot was
another case where the county would be
mulcted for million or more in damages
through the failure of the Homestead men
to obey the laws. He said it was not the
men who were locked out, but the mill
owners were prevented from entering upon
their own property
The views of other prominent LAWYERS
follow in this column. Opinions were OBJ
tanned from the attorneys for the firm, the
men aud the Sheriff.