The star. (Reynoldsville, Pa.) 1892-1946, 1902-01-29

employed and the unemployed, or be-
tween employer and employee, and
either side desires to make show Of
numerical strength by parade, or dem
onstration Of any kind, 1t certainly is
not the part OF wisdom to invite per-
sonal conflict by conducting that parade
or demonstration, even upon a public
highway, in the immediate vicinity Of
where the other side is located, al
though there may be no intent or pur-
pose to harass, annoy, intlmldate, or In
terfere with them. II breach OF the
peace is thereby occasioned, and a riot
ensues, all parties concerned and par
ticipating In such riot must answer
crimiually for their conduct, because
the offense is public one and is direct
ed against organized society generally,
and II Is immaterial which side is re-
sponsible for bringing on the conflict.
The fact which we mean to emphasize,
gentlemen Of the jury, is this: II riot
takes place public crime is thereby
committed, and the actors are liable to
be criminally prosecuted for the same.
The inquiry, In such case, is not who
Is to blame for occasionlng the riot but
who was engaged In 1t.
The defendants In this case, however,
are not TO be convicted Of riot because
they may not have acted wisely in
parading or in masslng about this silk
mill, or because Of any other mere error
OF judgment as TO their rights In this
respect. And we may here remark
that there has been some statements
made regarding misconduct on the
streets Of Reynoldsville since strike
was declared by the employees Of the
silk company some four or five months
ago-about insulting gestures and re-
marks being made, and about boycott
Ing men In business. We are not aware
Of any evidence In the case tending to
fix guilt on these defendants, or any OF
them, In such matters. They we're not
logitimately In this case, and the de-
fendants were not and could not be
heard on this trial regarding any such
| charges made against them. A con-
spiracy TO injure man In his trade or
business is criminal, and the parties en-
gagged In 1t may be criminally indicted
and prosecuted. II any Of the other
matters mentioned or referred to were
violations Of the law, the parties en-
gagged In them might be proceeded
against. But those are not the offenses
charged against these defendants, or on
which they have been put upon their
trial, and they ought not to weigh here
against the defendants, or operate to
convict them Of riot. 1t is scarcely
necessary for us TO say that the defend
ants are entitled to fair and impair
tial trial. No feeling or bias should
enter the jury-box against them. They
are not TO be convicted Of q criminal
offense merely because they have exer-
cised their legal right TO form labor Or
ganizations, or to march along the pub
lie highways in peaceable and orderly
manner. They can only be legally con-
victed when it is satisfactorily proven
that they have violated the law OF the
land in the manner and form charged
against them In these indictments.
They are not on trial for belonging TO
labor unions-that Is their right and
privilege. Neither are they on trial
for marching In parade-that also is
their right and privilege. Nor for
merely trespassing on the silk company's
property, II they did trespass on it.
But they are on trial for the serious and
criminal offense OF riot, and the ques-
tion for your determination Is did they,
or any OF them, commit this crimef
Did these defendants, or any OF them,
acting together or with others, to the
number Of three or more, create tu-
multuous disturbance OF the public
peace by combinding together with the
intent to mutually assist one another
against any who might oppose them in
the execution OF some private objectf
And did they execute that object in a
violent and turbulent manner TO the
terror Of the silk mill employees, OF
some OF them? II you answer these
questions In the affirmative, and are sc
satisfied beyond reasonable doubt
then 1t would be your duty to convict
the defendants Of riot, otherwise not
| The defendants offered testimony
tending to show that they enjoyed /,
good reputation for being peaceable ant
law-abiding citizens prior to the tim,
Of these offenses charged against them
This is not only proper but substantive
evidence In the case. Our Supreme
. Court has said that evidence Of goot
| character may be OF itself. or In connec
, | tion with the other evidence in thu
case, create the reasonable doubt which
works an acquittal. In so far as tn,