The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1899-05-03
The Law About Lynching.

COLUMBIA, April 20.-The Supreme
Court has rendered an important de-
cision in the matter of damages in case
of lynching.
In January, 1897, Lawrence Brown
was arrested on the charge OF burning
II gin house. He was dismissed by the
magistrate, and, on the night of his re-
lease, he was lynched. Action was
brought against the county OF Orange
burg for damages under the cOnstitu-
tional provisions. Under instructions
of Judge James f. Aldrich the jury
rendered verdict in favor OF the
county chiefly on the ground that
Brown was not a prisoner at the time
OF his being lynched, and that he was
not taken from the hands of the law to
be lynched. The lynching occurren on
January 3. 1897, near StiltOn.
Judge Aldrich, in his opinion before
the Circuit Court, took the position
that the Constituticn Il applied to cases
where prisoners were taken from the
custody OF officers Of the Court or law,
and the case was not submitted to the
jury on the evidence adduced.
Justice Gary renders the opinion OF
the Supreme Court, all the Judges con-
curing The body Of the opinion is
made up of copies Of the constitutional
provision, the Acts and matter leading
up to the expression of the Court,
which is as follows:
s"The intention Of the Constitution
was to prevent the crime OF lynch1ng
in two ways: First, by visiting upon
the officers OF the law the penalties
therein mentioned, when q prisoner,
lawfully in their custody, was lynched
by mob, through their negligence or
connivance, and second, to induce the
cooperation OF the taxpayers in pre-
venting the lynching in order that
their county might not become liable
to the penalty by way OF exemplary
damages OF not less than $4,000 to the
legal representatives OF the person
lynched.
t.The lynching Of a prisoner, and OF
one not in the custody OF the law as
such, is murder in both cases. Itwould,
therefore, at least seem strange it the
trainers of the Constitution were care
ful to provide in the organic law OF the
State a remedy for preventing the
lynching Of a prisoner and remained
silent as to the remedy in all other
cases of lynching. The constitutional
provision, however, is not confined to
the lynching of prisoners. The words:
Without regard to the conduct of Ofi
cers,n when considered in connection
with the evil which the Constitution
intended to remedy, must be construed
to mean without reference to what has
been said in regard to the conduct OF
the officers, or in other words, without
reference to other provisions OF the
section. They were inserted for the
purpose of showing that the prOvis0
was to be construed Independently and
without regard to what preceded it.
The word provided is omitted in the
Act, and this fact shows that the Leg
islature gave to the words without re-
gard to the conduct of the officers the
construction which this Court has
placed upon them.
''It must be remembered that many
of those who were members OF the
Constitutional Convention were like
wise members Of the General Assembly
when said Act was passed. While, of
course, q construction placed upon the
Constitution by the legislative branch
Of the Government would not be bind
ing upon the Courts, still in this case it
is well worthy of consideration. The
Act intended to make the county La
BILE for damages in those cases only
which fall within o provision Of the
Constitution, and it has correcEly con-
strued the Constitution to make
county liable for damages when the
person lynched was not in the custody
Of the law rs prisoner.
ssThis renders unnecessary the con-
sideratiOn OF the interesting question
whether the Legislature did not have
the power independently Of the consti-
tutiOnal provision to pass the Act here
intofore mentioned. 1t has been held
that statutes making q community liza
BILE for damages in cases OF lynching,
and giving aright of recovery to the
legal representatives Of the person
lynched, are valid on the ground that
the main purpose is to impose apenalty
on the community, which is given to
the legal representatives, not because
they have been damaged, but because
the Legislature sees fit thus to dispose
Of the penalty. Such statutes are sal
utary, as their effect is to render pro-
lection to human Life and make COM
munities law-abiding. But, as swe have
said, our conclusion renders unneces-
sary consideration OF this question.
1t is not necessary to consider the ex-
ceptions in detail, as cur views dispose
Of the main question in the case. 1t is
the judgmentof this Court that the
Judgment of the Circuit Court be re-
versed, and the case remanded for q
new trial ',-SDec;Gl TO Ne,rs and COu-