The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1895-08-28
HAS TIMES VIOLATED THE fkiN-
CipIE OF SEIT-EIIt?

IONS Of Iunenburg with making cei'dl"
dorogatorv statements about the people
of Lunenburg. it promptly "ei'icu '""'
Il had made the charges and cnered 10
ray the expresses of any member OF '"V
committee" who would come here ana
select from its columns what was ciali'-
cd IN embody these charges. IL adue'
chat 4, would then reprint the selected
rieces. and show that they made no such
charges. The Times repeated tils oii'''
hut no member of the committee came
,,or have the charges against The Times
lc,n withdrawn. This sort of conduct Is
M, exactlv consistent with the character
for fair dealing which the public meet
trgs in Lunenburg have claimed '"a'
the people there are entitled TO be credit
ed with
When the public meeting at Lunen-
burg Courthouse denounced Inc li'neS'
many persons in that meeting did not
oven know what The Times was uhJuS'S
charged with saying about Luhenp"'s'
1ye know this to be a fact. They were
told that The Times had said something
mr. another that was offensive 10 'he
people of Lunenburg. but they dld not
know whether or not The INES nau saiN
Il nor did they know what IT was that
The Times was alleged to have said. we
know this 10 be an actual fact
The Times was therefore entirely IN
different to the denunciation, feeling con-
ndent that after awhile the good people
of Lunenburg would learn that 'heg H"'
been imposed upon. and would DO Inc
Times fun justice.
But. while The Times is not IN me
least disturbed by the denunciation mat
misinformed men made of II. there was
one point involved IN the denunciauoh
which The Times does consider II impor-
tant TO give some attention to- Inc
nublic meeting asserted very positively
.hat the way in which the accused ne
.,roes should be dealt with. pertained 10
the cherished principle of local seli-goV-
eminent and that no other part OF the
state had anything to do with the way
in which Lunenburg county attended 20
Its own affairs and administered the
criminal laws.
The Times yields TO none in It's rev.
erence for the principle Of local seli-goV-
.rnment In its opinion. the whole lie
and prosperity of the people depend upon
tlis sacred principle being chung To VII"
a tenacity that knows no relaxation.
But we must have clear and disunct
understanding of what the principle ana
IT'S limitations and boundaries are. Ihere
must be some houndary-some verge
around the locality which determines
that the territory within il is what Is 10
constitute the locality. Otherwise the
principle would logically so to Justitying
each family In claiming that IL was
locality. This would be utterly unreason-
able and would produce anarchy.
There must. then. in the nature OF inc
case. be a boundary line establishing
reasonable number OF people and a rea-
scnable extent of territory as the locan-
". and there must be uniform laws ior
the whole OF each one Of the localilies'
We might adopt any boundary That we
pleased for the locality. but under o"i
nystam Of government We have adopted
the state lines as that boundary Local
aelf-govcrnment. then. means. with US
trat the people OF each state have the
right 10 make che domestic laws that
nrc 10 prevail In that State, but the laws
OF tlat state, when made. are 20 pre-
vail I'm every part of that state ana II
Is the function OF the state authority to
rec thar tho state Law is impartially en-
forced and administered IN eacn ano
every part of that State. The principle
OF local sclf-rule is compelled, by the
haturo OF the case. to submit to this re-
striction-or rather this restriction is
rart OF tho principle of local sef-rule-
and our laws assert It most emphatically
in their provision for moving the triai
OF a criminal case from the county IN
which the crime Is committed TO some
distant county. u prejudice In the first
oo,n.v threatens that the trial there
will not be fair. The appeal provided TO
. central appellate court Is another as
sertion OF the principle
When the people Of Lunenburg assert.
.h.n that they are entitled TO deal with
this case as they please. and without
,eference TO the way In which the rest
az tho State may regard It, they assert
pr4ncipls which can never be cohceded'
= n the inherent right OF every W.