The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1897-09-13
AN UNJUsTIFiABLE ACT.


Fuller details of the Hazleton tragedy
confirm the first impression that the firing
on the marching miners by the sherif's
deputies was wholly Unnecessary and I'M
justifable. either ir law or in the circum-
stances of the case In considering the
question we should divest our minds of
extraneous matters and consider it on its
merits The two great questions involved
are the enforcement of law on one side
and the sacredness of personal rights and
individual liberty on the other. All other
considerations are subordinate to these.
Such facts as that the marchers were Hit
crate foreigners, that they We're on strike,
that they were rough and turbulent men,
that they had been causing the sheriff a
good deal of trouble, etc, have no bearing
on the main questions. No matter how
ignorant rough or turbulent they were or
how much annoyance and vexation they
had given the sheriff, their personal rights
under the Constitution and laws were as
sacred as those of an equal number of
the first citizens of the land Personal
rights and personal liberty are too sacred
stances, or to be subjected to the whims
of sheriff who may not understand the
law any too well and an improvised force
of deputies. Human life is too sacred to be
taken except for the protection of society
by due process of law or in the enforce
ment of law when it becomes necessary as
a last resort. The question in this case is
such a violation of law as to justify the
sheriff in resorting to the extreme measure
of ordering the deadly volley. The Journal
thinks they were not We take it for
granted that the sheriff was acting under
an injunction which forbade the men from
marching to the Lattiner mine or inter-
fering with the workmen there. Admit
ting that he had such an injunction, it
could only be operative on the property
Of the person or company owning the Lat
timer mine. 1t could not have had any
binding force on the public highway where
the shooting took place. Whatever force it
had ended with the companys property
line, and that is where the sheriff and his
deputies should have taken their stand to
defend the property. The purpose OF an
injunction, and the only ground which
it can issue, is to prevent the commission
of a trespass or the preparation of
wrong or the destruction of property.
Marching on the highway does not come
under any of these heads, and no court
can make it so. The right of citizens who
have not committed any violation Of law
to march on public highway is worth
more than all the coal mines in the United
States. 1t does not matter whether the
citizens are native or foreign born, ig-
norant or learned, miners or manufactur-
ers, paupers or millionaires; the question
of personal rights and individual liberty,
as represented by the poorest man in Penn
sylvania, is of greater consequence than
the operation of all it's coal mines. The
marchers had a right on the public high
way. The sheriff had no right to stop them
short of the boundary line of the property
he was ordered to protect. All the courts
in Pennsylvania or the United States could
not give him right TO stop these men, or
a single one of them, on public highway
unless they had violated the law or were
in the act of doing so. He had no right to
conclude that they intended to violate the
law, thus imputing to them motive which
perhaps they did not entertain. Even if he
was right in his conjecture, he had no
right to shoot them suspicion. They
were not rioters, and they were not armed.
Threatening and defiant as they may have
been, they were not out to kill. If they
handled the sheriff roughly in the en-
counter on the road, he was first in the
wrong by blocking a public highway to a
body Of unarmed citizens who were peace
able until they were opposed in the exer-
else of an undoubted right.
The Journals conclusion is that the
sheriff acted without authority of law,
that there was nothing in the circum-
stances of the case to justify him in or
dering his deputies to fire on the miners,
and that his conduct was a gross abuse OF
official authority and an outrage on per-
sonal rights. 1t follows that there should
be a thorough investigation, and if the as
certained facts shall support this view the
sheriff and his deputies should be held to a
strict accountability.