Sequachee Valley news. (Sequachee [Sequatchie], Tenn.) 1896-1952, 1900-01-25

IequiTeu prompt actlOn II any re-
suit was attainable. There were nc
officers at hand and he did the next
best thing under the circumstances
The capture of criminals is neces.
sary just as much to deter others
from like acts as for the punishment
Of the guilty parties. This absence
of the proper officials was not through
any dereliction of duty on their part,
for they were absent on duty else
where. No one has yet discovered
plan by which the same body car.
be in two places at once.
MIR. Kelly applied for recompensa,
ton. lie did not demand it; he mere
| ly applied for it, thinking it was onl'
due him. His loss had been consId
cradle, and he did not believe the
county would refuse his application
and make him bear additional loss to
save the county $4,000 that no doubt
would have been expended just the
same if the proper officials shad had
the case in charge. The County
Court was not so obtuse but that it
could see the point, and it allow
ed him his expenses, and we do not
believe any thinklng citizen, who
will get right down to the bottom of
the facts, will az, stion their Judge.
ment. 1t was a turning point whcth-
er the Coanty Court should recog-
nIze the tax payer and citizen or the
criminal. Had it not endorsed Mr..
kelley's conduct every law breaker
IN the County would have been EN-
bodened to make further attacks up
on the proT erty of the citizens. 1t
was a moral crisis, which appears to
have been decided IN sagacious
manner. If the county will not
back up the citizen in an attempt to
capture criminal, what are we to
expect? 1t would encourage every
criminal to attempt like crimes under
similar conditions, inspired by the
belief that not every man would be
SO prompt in investigating the mat
ter as J. &. Kelly, regardless wheth-
er the County met the cost, or MT.
AS we have intilnated before, the
expense would probably have been
the same if the proper authorities had
had the matter in charge. If so,
what loss has the county sustained?
Rather, a gain, as showing that pri-
vate citizens are willing to assist in
preserving law and order in every
way possible. Mr.. Kelly as a citi-
zen and taxpayer was entitled to
protection, which at that moment
was unavoidably lacking.
Our contemporaries at South Pitts
burg have laid back their ears and
are vociferously braying about "pre-
cedents." Did Jim Jones make =
"precedrnt" when he captured the
thief that stole his horse and was al
lowed $243.S0 for his expenses in
apprehendlng the criminal? Why
not howl about that instead of the
paltry $4,000 expended by Mr.. Kel-
ly? But the distinction seems to
have depended upon the success of
the effort, if there were no other reas.
ons. Hence, if Mr.. Kelly had been
successful in capturing the thieves,
our contemporaries would have laud-
ed him to the skies, no recompense
would have been sufficient, and a
newspaper ovation would have been
accorded to him second only to that
given to Admiral Dewey by the
great dailies of New York.
Now in reference to the allowance
of $3400 to the boAdsmen of Sam
Smith. In the opinion of these mer
they believed and believe it still, thai
on the day when they presented
Smith at court for trial, their respon
sibility ceased. They did not be
lieve it was necessary to keep OF
presenting the prisoner to court da,
after day. They did not believe tina
the bond did not expire until sentenc,
was delivered -by the judge. Sup
pose the trial had been deferred fo
for ten years, or even one year, un
t less the former bondSmen had volun
=. teered, is it possible no new hon,
! would have been left undemanded