The Worcester spy., 1899-07-25
4 NATIONAL ABSURDITY.

Why should the italian government
make such a fuss because five of King
Humbert's subjects have been lynched
by mob at Tallulah, La? True, pro-
lection is granted to all foreigners by
treaty with their respective govern
ments, but the protection merely guar
antees the same rights and privileges
as are granted to the people of the sew
eral states. When Americans &c
abroad they expect similar protection
from those governments with which
the United States has treaties, but al
the same time, we Americans do not
expect to find everything precisely the
same in Europe as in America. We
intend as far as possible to conform
to the manners and customs of the
people with whom we may for the time
being reside.
Why not exact similar toleration
from foreign governments and for
eigners residing among us toward the
peculiar habits. customs and institu-
tions of the land? Now, it happens
that the lynching bee is one of the
most firmly established habits. customs
or institutions of the United States
, 1t is not a fashionable diversion in GER
tain statesg and foreigners who object
to it from motives Of convenience OF
personal feeling are recommended to
avoid neighborhoods where the people
esteem it divine right to dispense
with courts and shoot an unpopular
member of society to death or string
him up to any old tree that comes
handy.
When a foreigner falls a sacrifice to
local institutions, his government
should reflect that the same fate NAV
await any of the natives-nay, has
overtaken hundreds of then-and the
family of the injured foreigner has in
deed a marked advantage over the
family of the native. A foreign govern
ment may induce the United States
government to pay damages, as Italy
did after the New Orleans lynching;
but no such reparation can be expect
ed by the friends of an American citi-
zen who is lynched. Our government
denied that Italy was entitled to the
indemnity, and stipulated that it
should not be considered as establish
ing a precedent, but it is a precedent,
nevertheless.
Other forms of mob violence there
are to which natives and foreigners are
liable in all countries. Outbreaks even
more disgraceful than that which has
brought discredit upon Cleveland have
taken place in cities of the old world,
and in such cases natives and foreign
ers share and share alike in the mat
ter Of indemnity as we'll as of danger.
Why should the American citizen be
Disseminated against in the case of
lynching? Why shouldn't he be en-
titled to the same indemnity as the
foreigner? Moreover, if the general
government is to be called upon to pay
the fiddler after every lynching bee
at which a foreigner plays the solo
role and dances the pas de seui, why
shouldn't it have something to say in
regulating the ceremonies?
Serious as the subject is, the incon-
gruity Is ridiculous. A civilized nation
confesses its inability to protect Its
own citizens from the inhumanity of
lynch law, and when a subject Of a
friendly nation suffers from like afro
city our government, while denying all
responsibility, pays damages under
protest, serenely arguing that this is
matter which concerns only the in
dividual state, which constltutionally is
inhibited from all official dealings with
foreign governments. Is 1t any wonder
that innocent Europeans believe the
wild Indian plies his tomahawk and
scalping knife in the suburbs of New
York and sRoston?