The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-02-02
T1LLMAN's cowARDIcE.



Memphis Commercial-Appeal.
1t is intimated that Lieutenant Governor
Tillmans defense will be that as Editor
Gonzales approached. he had his hands in
his pockets. This means that one has
right to shoot any man down whom he sus-
poets OF having his hand on pistol In his
pocket, whether he has or not. If this sort
of a subterfuge is accepted in South Caro-
lima as a legitimate excuse for taking life.
we can only feel profoundly sorry for the
intelligence and public sentiment of that
State. We are, however. not willing to be-
lieve this. The crime which Tillman COM
mitted was so cowardly and atrocious
that no people. however lenient they may
be to the manslayer, can afford to pass il
over.
According to the law, no man has right
TO take anothers life except in defense of
his own; and the courts allow plenty of lati-
tude TO the man who thinks his life is in
danger. There was nothing to indicate TO
Tillman that Gonzales in any way menaced
his life. He had no reason TO attack Till
man. He had made no threats against him,
any other kind of demonstration. He was
sauntering along with his hands in his
pockets, and he was entirely unarmed. If,
then, Tilman should claim to have acted In
self-defense, he will have hard time prov
ing it. If Gonzales had threatened to kill
him on sight, and had come along with his
hands in his pockets, Tillman would have
had an excuse for shooting him down, not.
however, because his hands were in his
pockets, but because of the threat. If
when they met Gonzales had made any hos
tile demonstration and had dived into his
pocket for gun, Tillman would have had
some excuse.
But it is certain that Tillman knew his
life was not in danger. Some time before
that Gonzales had exposed Tillman In the
columns OF his newspaper, and he had done
1T with artistic completeness. 1t is not
within the bounds OF human possibility that
an editor after making an attack upon an
individual, and finding it unresented, is
going to hunt up that individual for the
purpose Of killing him. There was no
reason In the world why Gonzales should
have assaulted Tillman; and for the latter
to plead sef-defense or fear for his own
life would be the very extreme of coward
ice
Nor can Tillman very well plead that he
was resenting an insult. Some months be-
fore that he may have been insulted; but
he did not resent 1t at the time, and so he
was barred by the statute of limitations,
as it were 1t rests, of course, with each
individual man to decide whether or not he
will resent an insult. A celebrated person
me, blackguard cannot" 1t depends very
largely upon the point Of view, upon the
temperament of the individual, even upon
atmospheric conditions. Some men are SO
constituted that they will fight any one who
affronts them, whether it be gentleman or
guttersnipe There others whose per-
sonal courage is absolutely unquestioned
who pay no attention to personal attacks.
The man of delicate physique is, of course,
always at a disadvantage in a matter of
this sort. Ii he resents an affront he in
vite severe beating. There is, of course,
very little satisfaction in 'vindicating his
honor" by getting his head punched and his
eyes BACKED. He must, therefore, ignore
the insult or resent it with a deadly
weapon.
But while no fixed rule can be laid down
in a matter outside the law, 1t will be
pretty generally agreed that if an insult is
to be resented it should be resented at the
time 1t is given. The man who can pocket
an affront for several months has not been
seriously affronted, or he valves the right
which sudden heat of passion would give
him to resent it.
Either way Tillman is not in an agreeable
position. The plea of self-defense is q trans
parent fraud. and the plea of resenting an
insult is outlawed.