The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1902-08-05
THE LAW BROUGHT INTO CONS
TEMPT.

TEMPT.
yc1thin our recollection there has oeeH
no such trial in a court Of justice as
the so-caIiea trial Of Judge Campbell IN
the County Court Of Amherst for a con-
fcssed assault upon the Rev. j. c. CraW-
ford. and In the name OF Virginia JUS
tce IL is to be hoped there will never
be such another. While judge OF TINS
cour. and while member Of the Con-
stitutional Convention Judge Campoeii
publicly horsewhipped an old preacher and
not only inflicted severe punishment upon
his person, but inflicted &C in the way
recognized In Virginia and throughout
the South as the way of bringing the
victim into disgrace, and so causing MN
the greatest possible mental anguish
Il, when Judge Campbell began to lay
his lash on Preacher Crawford. tao latter
had defended himself with a stick, and In
so doing, have inflicted serious. not to
say fatal injuries upon his assailant he
would have been justifably in law. But
being an old man and minister OF the
gospel. Mr. Crawford did not attempt
TO injure Judge Campbell He took the
Punishment and relied upon the State to
deal Justly with his assailant- But the
Amherst jury said that Judge Campbell
had committed no offense worthy Of pun
ishment and let him go scot free. His
attack on DR.. Crawford was such as to
have warranted the venerable preacher
in shooting him down. yet the Jury said
that the assault was not & violation OF
the law, but was entirely tustifiable! If
that be Virginia law and Virginia JUS
tice, II that be the way the law is to be
well wipe tho law out and abolish the
courts and let anarchy reign
There were differences of opinion as to
the character in law of the offense COM
mitted by Judge Campbell, but there was
no sort of question as to the fact that he
committed breach Of the peace. Yet
counsel for Judge Campbell seriously
argued before the jury that he was JUS
tiflable in tllrashing this Yankee
preacher; and after this most remarka-
brought in verdict of mot guilty" The
verdict of the jury was, so far as the
jury could give it. a complete vindica-
ton Of Judge Can.Ybeil, and. as If that
were not enough, Judge Campbell's adj
mirers met and pa ssed resolutions APPROX
Ing the verdict and appla,uding the con-
duct of the judge.
But II Judge Campbell and his friends
think that he has been vindicated Ia
Virginia they are woefulLy mistaken.
This trial was a mockery and a travesty
of justice and has aroused the indigna-
ton of the law-abiding people of this
Commonwealth 1t were far better for
Judge Campbell. had the jury found him
guilty and imposed upon him the pun
ishment fixed by law. The Virginia
public will forgive much where delin-
quent makes an honest confession and
takes his punishment like q man. But
1t will not tolerate this absurd ''vindica-
ton which the jury has given in de-
fance Of the evidence. and Judge Camp
bell will soon find it out for himself, IL
he will feel the pulse OF the people.
The fact Is, this trial should never have
been held in Amherst. Every man in
the county who was At to serve on a
jury must have formed. II he had not
expressed, an opinion one way or the
other, and we do not believe that 1t was
possible, in the existing state of intense
public feeling. to ind an impartial jury
Moreover an attempt was made to inti-
ynidate the Commonwealth attorney and
to prevent him from making lawful
prosecution. The case ought by all
means to have been removed to another
county. /,
Az st s, the law in Amherst has been
brought into contempt. and 1t is impos-
sible for any man to respect the present
regime. Judge Campbell committed a
breach of the peace, was tried in his own
court and acquitted and ''vindicated"
by a jury OF his friends. The dig
nifty and efficiency of our court sys-
tenn require that he be removed from
the bench. and we believe that the peo-
pie Of Virginia demand it.