The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1899-06-04
OFFICERS RESPONSIBILITY TO THE
PUBLIC.


II a recent decision in a United States
district court in Indiana is sustained by
the higher courts OF the Nation the long
est step toward the removal of mob vlo-
lence anywhere in the country will have
been taken.
1t appears from reports OF this case that
few months ago Marion Tyler was
lynched in Scott county. Indiana His ad
ministrators brought action against the
sheriff OF the county for failing to protect
the prisoner from the mob. The case got
into the United States district court and
the defendants included the sheriff and his
bondsmen. Counsel for the defendants
attempted to throw the case out OF court
on demurrer, but the judge held that the
sheriff was responsible for the safety of
persons in his custody and was liable for
damages II they received injury. He de-
clared that II the law imposes on the
sheriff a duty OF care IN respect to ami
mails and goods OF which he is in possess
sion by virtue of his office and holds him
responsible II the property is destroyed, it
spect to human beings who are In his of
fetal custody. "Is helpless prisoner in
the custody OF the sheriff" he asks, LESS
entitled to his care than a bale of goods
or dumb beast?" He vindlcates the law
from such a reproach.
Judge Baker. the court, holds that e
sheriff owes to the State duty In the care
of prisoners. For breach of this duty
some kind of an action would lie against
him on behalf Of the public. But he is
also liable to the prisoner. II the prisoner
Is killed while in his hands the liability
| extends to the prisoners legal representa-.
tiyes. The Judge says: "As the lawful
/ custodian OF the deceased he owed to him
the duty of exercising ordinary and rea-
/ sonable care for his life and health. This
duty was due to the deceased personally
and is additional to the duty OF safekeep-
ing which he owes TO the public. This
duty OF care arose from having the person
of the deceased committed to his care by
/ virtue OF his office"
| a short time since one of The Posts ex-
changes took the position that the law II
/ South Carolina providing for a minimum
OF $4,000 damages to the heirs OF any mar
| lynched, to be paid by the county in which
| he was lynched was a gross imposition
upon the good lawahiding taxpayers OF
the county. who ought not to be held re-
sponsible for the actions OF the law break
ing element. The Post then said that
the duty which organized society owed "a
Its citizens was of far stronger character
than such theory OF responsibility
would imply. We contended that the so
cial compact gave every citizen a right
to demand protection against any or all
forms of lawlessness and that where The
county, or city, or State. failed to give
such protection the community as a whole
should properly be held responsible in
damages.
The exposition OF the Law as announced
by the Judge in the Indiana court upholds
this view OF The Post And as was said
by The Post in the editorial referred to-
when the law officers generally understand
that not only morally but legally they
ara responsible for all damages resulting
from their failure to strictly discharge
their duty. lynchings as well as many
minor clienses will be less frequent than
nowl Officers as well as individuals
should understand that they must obey the
laws and fearlessly and impartially do
their duty TO society.