The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-01-02
INDIANA LYNCHINGs.
Doubt as to the Workings of Gov.
Mounts Preventive Plan.
Washington Post.

The cheerful announcement is made that
Governor Mount, of Indiana, has d solution
on hand for the lynching problem in his
State. That were a contamination deVOutly
TO be wished, not only in Indiana but III
many other commemorative where hOmi-
cideS not justified by law, and many of them
amounting to atrOciOus murders, have
shamed our civilization The Governors of a
number of States have wrestled with this
problem and given it up in despair. The
press and the pulpit have attempted its So
luton without obtaining any marked degree
of success. If it were really true that In
dianas executive had hit upon any device
or plan that would rid that State of mob
violence, his fame would be assured. But
we fear the announcement is too gOOu to be
true, and this fear is based on the further
statement that he has prepared a bill for
the Legislature allowing the next of kin to
the person lynched to BRING. suit for damages
against the county IN which the lynchIng
occurs. The bill will also include white
Gaping"
The Springfield Republicans comment on
this is that Governor Mount is introducing
a new kind of life insurance, but the fear OF
penalty distributed over the taxpayers Of
Il county would hardly keep a mob of hot
headed lynchers from their prey" That
seems to us i reasonable proposition. While
penalty Of that kind would undoubtedly
act as a restraint. in many cases, it would
not work perfect cure. Doubtless a smaller
number of property holders would take part
IN lynchngs, but their places would be filed
by men whose names are not on the tax
lists. Such a law might, in some instances
render possible the detection. conviction and
But is Governor Mount sure that a legisla-
tive enactment of the character proposed
would stand the test of judicial inquiry?
Just such an act is on the statute book Of
Ohio, but no damages have yet been paid
under its provisions, and a case awaits the
decision of the court Of last resort.
Is there good ground for the belief that
the Supreme Court Of Indiana and the
United States Supreme Court-fOr if passed,
his law will eventually reach the latter
tribunal-woud hold the taxpayers of a
county pecuniarily responsible for the acts
of a gang of marauderS? Law is supposed
to be justice. 1t is intended to compel men
to deal fairly with their felloW-men Would
il be fair o compel the honest liW-a biding
majority in a county to pay for lives or
property destroyed by midnight assaSsinS or
inc endiaTes? Let us suppose that 80 per
cent of the property in a county is owned
by 10 per cent. of the inhabitants and that
all of these heavy taxpayers are peaceful,
orderly citizens. While they are asleep in
their beds at home forty or fifty men, COM
county seat, break into the jail, capture and
kill four or five incorporating the Ripley
county tragedy. Who will say that it would
be Just TO lay a county tax of $50 600 or $685.,
600 to pay for the lives of the murdered men.
And if it would be lawful-if a law COM
polling property holders to pay damages to
the heirs of persons lynched will stand the
constitutional test-why should not the same
principle be applied 10 all crimes? Is the
responsibility of a lawabiding taxpayer any
greater when murder is committed by a
assassin or two or three conspiratorS do the
deed? And why not bring all minor crimes
burglary, larceny. robbery, malicious mis-
chief etc,-under the same rule?
We do not wonder that Governor Mount
is anxious to put stop TO lynch1ng III his
State Two of the ninety-tWo counties in
that great commonwealth have outraged
public sentiment by lynchings, for which
there was neither excuse nor palEation- But
a law that would work manifest and gross
injustice would not cure the evil.