Abilene weekly reflector. [volume] (Abilene, Kan.) 1888-1935, 1901-02-14
Can One Crime Justify Another!

the argument is very badly warped
by the editors almost fsnatical pro-
hibition sentiments, the Marion Rec.
ord demands to be cited to the law or
laws OF Kansas which have been VIC.
lated by Mrs. Nation and her follow
ers. Well, the laws OF Kansas say
that any person who breaks open q
locked door shall be deemed guilty Of
burglary. They say also that any
person who goes violently after an
other person with Ratchet or any
other deadly weapon shall be deemed
guilty Of assault with intent to kill.
They say also that any person who
shall wantonly destroy property shall
be deemed guilty Of crime SO desig-
mated. They say also that people
who in a loud and boisterous manner
shall utter threats or who shall gather
together in a threatening manner
shall be deemed guilty Of rioting or
disturbing the peace. We think that
Mr.. Koch, the editor Of the Record,
will admit that il Mrs. Nation had
committed such acts as these against
any respectable business place, such
as the Record office for example, she
would be guilty under the law as
each was proved against her. There
fore we.must assume that Mr.. Hoch
holds Mrs. Nation innocent OF bur-
glary, assault with possible intent to
kill, malicious destruction OF proper
ty, and disturbing the peace, solely
for the reason that she committed
them while seeking to punish or sup.
press another kind Of lawbreaker. In
other words, it Is the conclusion Of
Mr.. Hoch that crimes are not crimes
II com mitted against a criminal, and
in this he is wholly wrong.
At Leavenworth mob took q negro
ravisher out and burned him at the
stake. There Is no doubt Of the fact
that thislnegro got his just deserts.
Barbaric though the method Of bis
exec ution was, bis crime Of murder
and ravishment had richly earned the
penalty Of death. Yet Mr.. Hoch de-
nsunces theIwork Of this mob. He Is
In no manner Of doubt that the mem.
bers Of that mob are criminals and
should be brought to justice. But,
SO holding, what becomes Of bis doc
trine that crimes cannot be commit
ted against criminalsP Where in
principle is there particle Of differ
ence between the work Of the Leaven-
worth mob and the work Of the mob
led by Mrs. NationP
1t is plain enough to us that the &C.
ton OF the mob at Leavenworth was
not crime against that negro raw
Usher, but crime against society.
Society has said in its written laws
that murderers and ravishers shall
not be punished except by the officers
OF the law after trial and conviction.
Society has said in the same written
laws that the jointkeepers shall be
punished and their business abated
after trial and conviction. Society
has not said that private citizens may
usurp the functions Of the courts and
officers and visit out private ven
geance.
II Mr.. Hoch will read the criminal
statutes OF Kansas he will find that
crime is a crime, against whatever
person or kind of property it may be
committed. The sections describing
burglary and fixing the penalty do
not, for example, make the reserva-
ton that person breaking into
house in the night shall be deemed
innocent II the person thinks he is
doing that act for good purpose. A
court Of law in hearing such a case
would not permit the defense to even
put in testimony to the effect that
some person had behind that door
property with which he was breaking
the law with respect to selling liquor.
Society in its laws has provided an
adequate means Of coming al this
liquor seller, and these means do not
include the methods OF Mrs. Nation
and her compatriots.
And this brings us around to the
defense Of mob rule which is generally
made by its advocates. 1t is to the
effect that when the officers Of the
law do not perform their duty, the
people then have the right to punish
criminals with violence. At the To.
paka mating nm Sunday for avamnla