The Newberry herald and news. (Newberry, S.C.) 1884-1903, 1899-04-28
THE LAW ABOUT LYNCHING.
JUDGE ALORICH'S NOIABIE BECIS.
ION REVERSED
he '"H" OF ISnnr Brown Asainst the
C"u"ty "r Nra"EcburE FOR Dninn.Cs
Th" CnnS,' rion proviI"a for tho
Punishment rf Ohiccrs from
whose linud- Prisoners nrr
THitrn and J.ynchrd.
Especial to News and Courirr.D

Noilinbla, Anril ~. no Ou-
prcme Court hus rendered uu inipor
tnnt decision in the mnttor Of dam
agos IN case Of lynching.
In january, 1897, Lawrence Brown
was arrested on tho Charge Of burn
ing gin house. lie was dismissed
by the magistrate, and, on tho night
of his release, ho was lynchcd. Ac-
ton was brought against the County
of Orangoburg for damages under
the constitutional provisions. Under
instructions Of Ju,lge James Al
drich tho jury rendered Il verdict in
favor Of tho county chiefly on the
ground that Brown WAS not prs-
oncr at tho time OF his being lynchrd,
and that he was not taken from the
hands of the law to be lynchcd. The
lynching occurred Oh January 3,
1897, near Stilton.
Judge Aldrich, in his opinion bo-
fore the Circut: Court, took the posi-
ton that tho constitution applied to
cascs whcro prisoners were taken
from tho custody Of officers of the
Court or law, and tho case was not
submitted to the jury on the evidence
ad,lnccd.
Justice Gary ronders the opinion
Of tho Supreme Court, all the judges
concurring. Tho body of the opin-
ion is made up Of copies Of the con
stitutional provision, the Acts and
matter Leading up to the expression
Of the Court, which is as follows:
"The intention of tho Constitution
was to prevent the crime Of lynching
III two ways: First, by visiting upon
the officers of tho law tho penalties
therein mentioned, when Il prisoner,
lawfully in their custody, was lynchcd
by mob, through their negligence,
permission OF connivancc, and second,
to induce the co operation of tho tax
payers in preventing the lynching in
order that their county might not bo,
como liable to the ponalty by way OF
exemplary damages Of not less than
$1,000 to the legal representatives of
tho person lynched.
"The lynching Of II prisoner, and
Of one not in tho custody Of the law
az such, is murder in both cases. 1t
would, therefore, at least scom strange
If the trainers Of tho Constitution
were careful to provide in tho organic
law of tho State remedy for pro.
venting tho lynching Of Il prisoner
and remained silent as to the remedy
in all other cases Of lynchins. Th,
constitutional provision, however, is
not confined to the lynching Of pris
oners The words: 'Withont regard
to the conduct Of olliccrs,' when con.
sld"rcd in connection with the evil
which the Constitution intended tC
remedy, must be construed to mean
without references to " at has been
sald in regard to tho conduct of the
officers, or in othor words wiihOu,
reference to other provisions Of the
section. They were inserted FIR the
purpose Of showing that tho provsc
was to be construed independently
and without regard to what preceded
it. The word provided is omitted
| in the Act, ana this fact shows that
the Lcgislatur" gave to the words
without regard to the conduct of the
officers the construction which this
Court has placed upon them.
at must be remembered that man,
OF those who were members Of the
Constitutional Convention were like
wise members Of tho General Assem-
bly, when said Act was passed. While
OF course, a construction placed upor
the constitution by the LegisIativ,
branch Of tho Government would no
be binding upon the Courts, still il
this caso 1t is well worthy Of consid
Grafton. Tho Act intendeI to max,
the county liable for damages in thos,
cases on ly which fall within Il provis
ion Of the Constitution, and it ha
correctly construed tho Constitution
to make a county liable for damage
when tho porson lynchod was not il
tho custody Of the law as a prisoner
"This renders unnecessary tho con
sidcration OF the interesting question
whether tho Legislature did not hav