The Abbeville press and banner. [volume] (Abbeville, S.C.) 1869-1924, 1899-03-01
Wednesday, March 1, 1899.
The Columbia Trouble.

We copv from the State the full account OF
the recent trouble in Columbia. we 40 th's
that the public may know the particulars OF
the affair of which we may expect 10 near
much. The account Is by The State, which Is
strongly opposed to the dispensary la"' anu
which has labored zealously for its aoroga-
tion.
The whole affair is greatly to be regretted
but the disturbance was of personal charac-
Ter. and was brought on by the indiscretion
of the individual actors in the lamentaole
scenes.
Constables who drink, or who have figured
in previous troubles should not be employed
ON the constabulary force. The appointing
mower Ia therefore responsible for the appoint
ment OF indiscreet or unwise officers 70 als'
charge disagreeable or unpleasant duty.
In this trouble, as in nearly every otner
trouble, the fault is not all one side.
In the first place, we do not understand why
anv innocent person should object to having
suspicions against him set al rest. IL ID
serious matter to charge man with selling
uouor and especially is this true, II 1t be
charged that the Illicit traffic was conducted
nnder the roof of the house wherein the vile
and children live. Notwithstanding Inc
natural indignation, that man would feel
at usly charges which might be made, yet II
he were innocent, IL seems that his first I'M
oulse would be to demand immediate ana
thorough examination, SO that the omcers oi
the law might themselves be able 10 correct
the erroneous impression that may have gone
abroad. II public officer is charged Win
wrong doing, we believe that he usually de-
mands Immediate investigation, that ne may
be indicated. The lie and character OF the
private citizen should be protected with even
greater care than the actings and doings OF
public officer. The sanctity OF the hreside
should be shielded by all the powers Of the
law, and when the actings and doings OF the
Stuart family were brought into question 1t
seems TO us that they should have invited,
rather than repelled, the examination OF
their premises.
In the second place, the constable should
not have used insulting words to Mr. Stuart
The great State of South Carolina authorizes
nobody to insult anybody. Instead Of insult
ing Stuart, the constables might have been
polite and expressed their regret at the per-
formance of an unpleasant duty. But, the
constables used insulting words, to which
Stuart replied In kind.
Stuart resented the constable's words by the
use OF other words still more insulting. and
1t seems to us that he was perfectly excus
able. But the constable struck Stuart. This
was mistake, and this mistake may have
resulted In the shooting that followed.
As We understand, from reading the ac'
count. there were no further blows at that
time and the constables began to walk of.
The walking of process, 1t seems to us, was
what the Stuarts wanted. But Stuart
opened fire, and the constables returned the
fire, with results, as stated in the accounts.
The firing by Stuart seemed unnecessary.
The return OF his fire was not an unnatural
result. or course the constables shot at
Stuart. The killing Of Mrs. Stuart was an
accident. 1t does not appear that she was
belgerent or that the constables had even
been impolite to her. Upon refusing to al
low the search of her house, they asked her
to send for her husband, which she did.
With wise and discreet copstables making
the raid, 1t is quite likely the trouble would
not have occurred. II was the constables and
not the Law, that was to blame. The con-
stables had warrant TO search the premises.
This in no way authorized them to insult
anybody. For that insult. II for no other
reason, the offender should be instantly re-
moved from the force. 1t appears that the
chief offender In this trouble has had other
experiences, any one of which should have
precluded the possibility Of his being on the
force Violent men, and men who have not a
proper regard for the rights Of others, should
be Immediately dismissed. The State OF
South Carolina does not needlessy humiliate
convict. Then why should constable IN
the name OF the common wealth, be allowed
to insult the citizen?
Let the public not be misled by the occur
renee last Saturday in Columbia. 1t was the
result Of appointing improper men TO dis
charge duty which should have been per-
formed with the utmost courtesy. But
whose insulting manner brought on the diff
Guilty, which would have occurred regardless
Of any fact OF enforcing prohibition or the re-
strictions Of the dispensary law.