The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1897-09-03
7hc Thurn,ond Casa.

Tho writer Of these few words has
been an interested reader of The lICrald
and News 10" seven or eight Years and
has always Or'E struck with the Va!m,
unbiased attitude OF lltc editorial page,
and is free to confess that his own
opinions have many times brrn in no
small degree modified hy rrrusing It's
columns. but the two editorials on the
Thurmond affair seemed 10 bc nrrdlcss-
~ harsh, and intend ut least to try to
show that Mr.. Thurmond was not
wholly without excuse and that the
verdict was in accord with the true
reason Of the case.
First: iou ask, "What was he, Il
peace officer, doing with pistol in his
pockct?' Now, the cvdcncc did not
show that Mr.. Thurmond had II pistol
In his pocket. The prosecution failed
TO establish this point. Mr. Thurmond
swOrc that his pistol was in his Office
on his desk, and in the absence of any
rebutting evidence or presumption to
tho contrary, ought to be believed.
But aside from this, would not u Solici-
tor O justified as " matter Of common
prudence, in having weapons on hia
person ut all times to defend himself,
provided he Carried them in II manner
not contrary to law; being engaged in
prosecuting all kinds of criminals for
all kinds Of crimcs--somu of whom or
their friends, might at an unexpected
moment seek an opportunity of wrcall-
ing personal vengeance.
Second: You say, "Ioung Harris did
not strike or shoot and had nothing
with which to shoot" Suppose We ud-
nit thiS-nlthOugh there was IL rumor
OF which the jury could not have pos
slbiy been ignorant that II fellow drum
mcr picked up Harris pistol aud
carried it OF and although Miss Abbott
who know neither Of the men, testified
that the man outside of size door
(llarris) drew pistol BuL jury must
not consider what rumor says, and let's
say for the sake Of argument that Miss
Abbott was mistaken IAN admission
that the evidence by no means justilics)
Does that alter the case? Did not yood
men swear that Harris limited strongly
OF firearms when he and ThurmOnd
met at the drug store? Harris was
drunk. Now when Harris presented
himself ut Thurmond's Office, what liv-
ing man could have told whether he
had pistol or not. Thc law in its
wisdom expects no man to exhibit moro
than reasonable amount OF courage
and prudence ut any time. Now, the
question FOR the jury to determine was
ship OF the PARTIES, considering what
events had preceded and the characters
OF the two men, was the conduct Of
Harris such as To lead q man of reason
able courage and prudence to think his
life in danger. The drawing Of Il dead
~ wcapOn would Of course be the most
wrighly evidence, but cases arc possi-
hlc in which an intention to kill or i'll
jurc would hc evident without it,
Third: "Words do not Justify blows"
This Is Il sound principle of law. And
rs equally sound Il principle is this:
circumstances may justify blows and
even defensive violence. What these
circumstances are Is Il question of fact
for the jury under the direction OF the
court.
Fourth: The fact that Thurmond was
larger than Harris can have no bear
ing in the case at all. y pistol in the
hands OF u small man is as dangerous
ns one in the hands of IL larger one and
Thurmond had heard him boast of
using tirrarm, and saw him put his
hand to his hip pocket.
Also looking ut the fact that Bill
ThurmOnd is young man of unim-
pcached character and gentle DISPOSE
tion and that he left Harris cursing and
ridiculing him at Lynch's drug store.
rtsting the chance Of being called a
coward and went to his Office to his
work, We repeat that all this abuse Of
ThmmOnd is uncallrd for and unchar-
liable to say the least of it, Tho above
IL written in no spirit of unkindncs or
III feeling toward the editor but merely
to stand up for what | think to be lust
and charitable. G. J. RAMAGE.