The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1899-04-26
AS TO LYNCHING.
The Supreme Courts constSuc~
ton Of the State Constitution.
AVERY IMPORTANT DECISION
The Estate of Party Lynched
May Obtain TWO Thousand
Dollars Damages.

The State supreme court Thursday
rendered decision which virtually
means that the estate of party who
comes to his death at the hands Of a
mob may obtain damages from the coun-
ty of which he was resident.
The constitution of 1895 contains a
clause which makes an officer guilty q;
a misdemeanor who permits prisoner
to be taken from him and lynched:
Provided, in all cases Of lynching where
death ensues the county where lynching
takes place shall, without regard to tn.
conduct Of the officers, be liable in eS-
emplary damages Of not less than 81
600 to the legal representatives OF the
person ynched
The general assembly in 1896 passed
an act in compliance with this section
Of the constitution. There has since
been no demand for damages which has
obtained judgment through the
courts until the decision fled Thurs
day.
In January, 1897. Lawrence Brown.
colored, was by a mob hanged to tele-
graph pole in Orangeburg county. His
estate, through Isaac Brown. as admin
istrator, brought action against the
county to recover damages.
Judge Aldlich instructed the Jury to
bring in q verdict in favor Of Orange
burg county, as the State conferred
upon the estate of the deceased no
right to recover damages, as the party
lynched was not in the custody Of an
officer.
The case was appealed to the su-
preme court, which reversed the judg-
ment of the circuit court and remanded
the case for new trial in Ocangeburg
county
The opinion was written by Justice
Gary and concurred ia by Chief Justice
McIver and Associate Justices Pope
and Jones.
After reviewing the section Of the
constitution in connection with the
facts the opinion says:
The intention Of the constitution
was to prevent the crime Of lynching in
two ways: First, by visiting upon the
officers of the law the penalties therein
mentioned when prisoner, lawfully IN
their custody, was lynched by a mob
through their negligence, permission,
or contrivance, and second, to induce
the cooperation of the taxpayers in
preventing the lynching, in order that
their bounty might not become liable
to the penalty by way Of exemplary
damages of not less than $1,000 to the
legal representatives Of the person
lynched.
THE lynching Of prisoner and Of
one not in the custody Of the law as
such, is murder in both cases. 1t would
therefore, at least seem strange If the
trainers of the constitution were carr
full to provide in the organic Law OF the
State a remedy for preventing the
lynching of prisoner and remained
silent as to the remedy in all other
cases Of lynching.
THE constitut .onal provision, how.
ever, is not confu, ! to the lynching of
! prisoners. The words: without regard
to the conduct Of the officers" when
considered in connection with the evil
which the constitution intended to
remedy, must be construed to mean;
without reference to what has been
aid in REGARD to the conduct of the
officers, or in other words without ref
erence to other provisions of the Sec
ton. They were inserted for the pur-
pose of showing that the proviso was to
be construed independently and with
out regard to what preceded 1t. The
| word provided" is omitted in the act,
and this fact shows that the legislature
gave to the words without regard to
the conduct of the officer" the con-
struction which this court has placed
upon them.
1t must be remembered that many
of those who were members OF the con-
stitutional convention were likewise
members of the general assembly when
said act was passed. While, Of course
construction placed upon the constl-
tuition by the legislative branch OF the
government would not be binding upon
| the courts, still in this case it is we'll
worthy of consideration.
''The act intended to make the coun-
ty liable for damages in those cases only
which fall within the provision Of the
constitution and it has correctly con-
strued the constitution to make coun-
ty liable for damages when the person
lynched was not in the custody OF the
law as prisoner.
This 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
inbefore mentioned.
1T has been held that statutes max
ing community liable for damages in
cases Of lynching, and giving a right
of recovery to the legal Representative
of the person lynched, are valid on the
ground that the main purpose is to I'M
pose a penalty on the community,
which is given to the legal representa-
tiyes, not because they have been dam
aged, but because the legislature sees
fit thus to dispose of the penalty.
'Such statutes are salutary, az their
effect is to render protection to human
life and make communities law abiding.
But, as ne have said, our concius-
ion renders unnecessary a consideration
Of this question.
1T is not necessary to consider the
exceptions in detail as our views dis
pose Of the main question in the case.
1T is the Judgment of this court that
the judgment Of the circuit court be
reversed and the case remanded for a
new trial.
Round the World in Thirty Days.