The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-01-28
MR.. ROOSE'S CONTENTION.


to the necessity for action on the question.
and said that the committee favors law
TO prevent lynchings but the only thing in
this bill is that the county shall pay 5000
to the widow OF children. He declared that
no one could tell whether ever in the his
tory OF the State sheriff has been negll-
gent Mr.. Noel asked him about the sheriff
in the Marion Tyler lynchipg, who saw the
man die after the mob had left. Mr. Roose
said that the sheriff claimed he had done all
within his power, and no one could gainsay
the statement. He considered the bill en-
tlrely inadequate.
Mr.. James said that he was in FAVOR of a
good law but the only feature he saw in
this bill was the clause providing that the
sheriff or other official should be ousted
from ONCE In case he permitted man TO
be taken from him. He said the people of
the whole county would have to pay the
money over, and not those only who par
ucipated in the lynching.
Mar. Blankenship moved that the bill be
recommitted with instructions that the
money should be paid by the county to the
school fund but the members were after
the bill and led his motion. Mr. Altman
said he wa 'avor of the section relating
TO the rem the sheriff, but could see
no other feature in the bill. He said
he was I'd to this bill, although he
was stroEA in favor of a good law on the
subject He did not believe il was right that
the law-a abiding and law-respecting people
of county should be compelled to pay the
penalty for the actions of the guilty few
Mr.. Roots suggested a compromise that
the bill should be passed to the second
reading and an attempt be then made to
perfect a bill by amendments. but the sug-
gestion was not well received.
Mr.. HUFF said: Il am opposed to this
bin or any other bill or law on this subject.
Those who prepared this bill and brought
1t IN here did the State a poor service. 1t
would be disgrace TO the State of Indiana
to have ii go to the world that it is neces-
sary to have such a law and | would feel
with
lynching law in the statutes. There is not
a section of the bill that Is not Islander on
the talr name of Indiana. 1t don't prevent
iynchings, 1t don't detect lynchers. Civ
tlization does not begin in the grand jury
room, although there are some people who
think that il does. This discussion will
convey the impression that in Indiana we
have lynchings for breakfast lynchings for
dlEner and lynchings for supper. The only
solution of this question is civilization,
which the laws cannot make. Civilization
must begin in the hearts and in the minds
of men, and l believe that our civilization
Is advancing as fast as the wheels of time
reVolVe."
Mr.. Canada said he was violently opposed
10 lynchings and mobs but he did not be-
lleVe that this bill would prevent them.
Lynchers, he said, do not go around telling
their Intentions and stating to people what
sheriff call in the troops bring in an officer
from another county TO take charge of these
troops, make the death certain and have an
effective bill. Il would look with glee on
bullet going through the heart of mem
Der of a mob asserted Mr. Canada. He
wants business law a strong law, and
one that will be effective.
Mr.. O'Bannon held that q man who COM
mits crime should alone be held respon-
Slble for 1t. II a man commits murder,
he does not think the citizens of the county
should be held responsible. The present.
trouble is to find the evidence on which 10
convict He believed that the united sent-
ment OF the members was for law and or
der, but the principle of this bill was wrong.
PRESENT LAWS ARE ADEQUATE
Mr.. Brown was in favor of the proper
punishment of murder, but he believed that
the present laws are adequate to cover the
case of lynchings. He believed that the
section regarding the removal of sheriffs is
unnecessary, as the present laws cover that.
In his opinion, the only good feature of the
bill was that prosecutions might be COM
menced on information and not on indict
ments alone. He would heartily support a
bill to wipe out the entire grand jury sys-
tenn.
Mr.. Willoughby defined the law as an at
tempt to create new crime-lynching. he
held that a lyncher is guilty of murder,
but the trouble is to prove a person par
ticipated In mob violence. He held that
the sections relating to the offense and the
recovery of damages are good. He believes
that the only way TO prevent lynching is To
make ii expensive for the county in which
they occur In his opinion, the bill passed
the other day giving to Judges the option
regarding cndnSe OF venue would render
these sections ineffective, as a judge would
refuse to send such cases out of the county,
and he did not believe a conviction could
be secured. AS he believed these sections
would be imperative, he was against the
bill
Mr.. Kirkpatrick said the bill should go
to the second reading. He believed that
the bill had many Objectionable features,
but did those opposed have anything better
TO offer? He said the officials have tried
to do their duty under the existing laws,
drawn attorney
general He asserted it was not near so
drastic as the Ohio law which has been
Mr.. Whitcomb, of Marion said he was OPP
posed to the redress of wrongs by mob Vio-
lence. He thought the minority report
should be accepted in order that the bill
might be amended on the second reading.
Mr.. Downey said it would be proper for In
diana to have an anti-lynching law. He
granted that this was not an ideal bill and
that there were Objectionable features in it.
Said he: II raise my voice in support of the
spirit which prompted 1t. we nave sltua-
ton to meet Let us meet 1t fairly. Let US
uphold the Governor in his efforts let us
formulate good law and put 1t in the
sisted on the minority report i'm order that
the bill might come up for amendment.
Mr.. Neal could see nothing Objectionable
in the bill. II said Mr.. Huff had claimed
that such a law would be a disgrace, but
he believed it was the ynchings which dis
graced the State He demanded of Mr..
Roose what he had to offer on this sub
ject as he was opposed to this bill. He
claimed that many of the members attacked
this bill but not one of them had made
a suggestion for its betterment or what
such law should contain. IF the bill has
faults. why not pass it to the second reading
and correct those faults and not kill it
without an opportunity to perfect a good
law"
Mr. Marshall closed the debate by a de-
mand for the previous question Mr.. Noel
closed by saying that the citizens of the
counties where lynchings have occurred
have gone to the Governor and attorney
general and have told them they were law
tions were held they either refused their
assistance or went on the witness stand
and perjured themselves He said Mr.. Huff
was the only man in the House opposed TO
an anti-lynch law. If the bill does not
suit you, adopt the minority report and let
it go to the second reading and amend Il,
but don't shirk your duty he concluded.
THE VOTE AS RECORDED.
The minority report recommending pas
sage was then lost by the vote of 80 ayes to
60 noes as follows:
way, Durham, Downey, Fuller, Furness,
Giants, GlossBrenner, Hayes of ST. Joseph,
Hedgecock, King, Kirkpatrick Knots,
Louttit, McGary, Marshall, Murphy of Ma
rion, Neal, Noel. Osborn, owen, Reece Ri
fenburg, Roots, Ross, Scott of Montgomery,
Scott of Lawrence, Shideler. Somers, Stew
ems, Whitcomb of Vigo, Whitcomb of Ma
rion, Williams.
Nays-Artman, Baker of Whitley. Baker
of Martin. Bonnam, burrier Brown. Can
Clements, Cravens OF Washington. Cravens
of Monroe Cotner, Cunningham, Guilty,
Dilley, Eichhorn, Feist, Geisel. Graham,
Green. Hall, Hays OF Green, Holcomb, Hut,
LAIR, Lawrence, Left, Manifold, Messiek.
Miller, McCarty, Madden. Marsh, Morrison.