Kansas City journal., 1898-03-09
JUDGE WooDWARD's CHARGE.
SAYS MEN MAY STRIKE AND PER-
sUADE OTHERS TO STRIKE.
May Not, However, Compel Anyone to
Quit Work-A Sheri6s Duty to
Enforce the Law and Citi-
zens' Duty to Obey
His Orders.


there were three propositions in the case:
First-That there was rioting in and
around Hazleton, from the Bird to the 10th
Of last September: second. that Sherin
Martin was called to Hazleton to suppress
this rioting; third. that the mob which
marched to Latttmer was riotous. law
breaking and disorderly.
He argued that If the jury believe the
sheriff had given, by direct command or
previous instruction. the order to fire, then
the deputies could not be found guilty of
any crime, as they obeyed the order Of
their superior officer, who was the supreme
power at the time.
IF you find that the strikers were riot
Gus: that they refused to obey the orders
of the sheriff; that the sheriff's life or the
deputies lives were in danger, then the
shooting was justified and neither the
sheriff nor the deputies can be held
District Attorney Martin then commenced
the final address for the commonwealth.
1. was after o'clock when he concluded.
Judge Woodward Immediately began his
charge to the jury.
After defining the various degrees OF
murder, his honor took up the question
of whether or not such conditions of dis
order existed in the region prior to Sep
tember 10. the date of the shooting, as 10
Justify the sheriff's action in calling out
the posse comitatus. In this connection.
he discussed the nature of the office OF
sheriff. his powers and duties, saying:
ITO disobey the summons of the sheriff
is to be guilty of a misdemeanor and shall
subject the offender to the punishment OF
fine and Imprisonment"
Continuing. the judge said: There IL
no law. either by statutory enactment or
by any decision of our courts, to prevent
laboring men from stopping work and go
ing upon strike, whenever. in their own
opinion, it is for their interest to do so.
Nor is there any law which makes 1t
conspiracy for workingmen, in any de-
partment of human industry, to combine
together and, by mutual agreement, to re-
fuse employment until there has been
brought about a satisfactory adjustment
between their employers and themselves
upon the points at issue. The liberty OF
contract is not to be infringed, either by
the employed or by the employer.
LAS the employer has no right to COM
pei a man to work who does not wish to
work, SO also is 1t true that the employe
has no right to compel his fellow work.
man TO quit work if he wishes to work.
"And the compulsion denounced by the
law is not alone that which consists in act
ual physical force. applied by one set of
men upon another. 1t may consist in
course of action tending to overawe, or
frighten. or stampede body of men who
are anxious to work, well as in laying
a violent hand upon the individual work.
men and forcing them by main strength
10 abandon their employment and unite In
strike.
ut is certainly true that. both at West
Hazleton and at Lattimer, the great body
of the strikers failed to obey the sheriff
1,, han diSaa ND n
sisted on pushing on. Nor can ii be doubt
ed that the sheriff had the right, in the
exercise of the discretion vested in him by
the law, to issue the order. And If 1t were
the right of the sheriff to command the
crowd to disperse, then 1t was the duty OF
the crowd to obey his command. The right
to give the order implies the duty OF obed-
fence to the order, and disobedience to 1t Is
evidence of riotous purpose. If l push
on when the sheriff orders me TO stop, 1
do SO at my peril.
OF course, this obligation of obedience
to the authority of the peace officer of the
county is not confined to laboring men. 1t
extends to and embraces all the inhabitants
of the county, rich or poor, nigh ana low.
evidence, that the purpose of the sherit
and of the posse was to preserve order ana
prevent riot, then ii would follow that
their intent and object was not a criminal
or unlawful one. and the rule OF the law
which makes the act Of one the act OF Al
has no application to the facts OF THIS
case.
by the evidence that the sheriff was not
actuated by a desire and intention to pre-
serve the peace, but that he summoned his
posse with the idea of infiicting upon the
body of men known in the case as strikers.
wanton and unnecessary outrage and in
jury, without reference to their action and
conduct-if, in short, his purpose was a
base malicious and wicked one then, so
"a a he Sn az ia
deputies were concerned, ii they understood
his motive and acted with the same intent.
bination would be established and then all
the defendants might be convicted, al
though the shot which took the life Of the
deceased was fired by single one of the
that event, be the act of all.
Under all the evedince in the case, II
doubt that the sheriff and his posse were
impelled by criminal or unlawful pur-
pose. then the doctrine Of the law which
there are many defendants. the criminal act
of one of them is, under certain circum-
stances, to be regarded as the criminal
act of all. has no place in this case.
After careful examination of all of
the testimony, i am prepared to say that
in respect to which the witnesses differ in
their statements as to the occurrence at
lattimer, is:
'.First-As to the number of men who
surrounded the sheriff after his effort to
arrest one Of the strikers.
''Second-AS to the firing, was II con-
tinued after the ranks of the strikers had
broken and were in retreat, or did it cease
when the volley was fired? 1t is alleged
by the commonwealth that those of the
killed and wounded who were shot in the
back received their wounds while in the
act of running away, and from shots deliv-
cred after the main volley had been fired
Il is claimed by the defendants that the evi.
dence shows that the firing ended with the
Volley while the strikers, or some of them
at least, were still advancing toward the
line of the deputies. and that those Of the
strikers who received wounds in the back
were among those who surrounded the
sheriff when he made the arrest. and was
pushed from the main road to the ditch
one side of IL.
1t is further claimed that the orders OF
the sheriff were not to fire unless he gave
the word. or unless his own life was ir
danger, and he was so situated as not &c
be able to issue an order-or unless the
deputies themselves were in danger of los.
ing their own lives by an assault upor
them. The settlement of these disputed
points by the jury may be important, upor
the question whether the posse comita tus
originally legally constituted body did OF
did not become an unlawful assemblage b,
reason of any subsequent determination Il
disregard the law and commit crime"
The jury then retired to deliberate
Judge Woodward kept the court open to
night until 8 o'clock, when the Jury no
having sent word to him that a decision
had been reached. he adjourned court unit
10 o'clock tomorrow morning.