The sun., 1903-08-17
Three Views of Lynch Law From
Three Supreme Benches.

Mr.. Justice BREWER of the Supreme
Court Of the United States discusses the
crime of lynching in a manner which at
once arrests attention and stimulates
thought. His remarks on the subject
in Leslies Weekly Of to-day are neither
platitudinous nor timid
In the first place, Justice BREWER dis
eliminates between two kinds of lynch
ing, as follows:
There have been two kinds OF lynch law, and
II Ia well to distinguish between the two, In San
Francisco for instance many years ago, the better
citizens became convinced that the ofncials were
in league with gamblers and other wrongdoers;
hence crime was rampant. neither life nor properly
being sacred. Deliberately they came together.
organized and in effect took possession OF the
government. administering law promptly and
severely: with the result as claimed that crime
was checked and order reestablshcd, Whatever
may be said OF such movement II Is not like the
lynch law that now prevails II was more In the
nature Of a revolution by which the regularly
elected officers were put out Of once and a new
government established. But the lynching which
now attracts attention Is the temporary uprising
OF mob called into being by the commission Of
some terrible crime. the perpetrator OF which IL
seeks to punish"
The classification is proper and the
distinction sharply drawn. What we
note is that Justice BREWER fails to pro-
nomce an opinion, either in the way Of
condemnation or of extenuation, con-
cerning lynch law rs it was systemati-
cally administered let US say, in Cali
fornia in the days of his former asso-
ciate, the late STEPHEN JOHNSON FIELD,
or In Montana during the epoch in which
ex-senator WILBUR FIsKE SANDERS was
central figure and OF which he was
afterward the modest historian.
Justice BREWER apparently regards
the first variety of lynch law as Of SUI
perior ethical texture although he does
not say 80 directly. II that Is his view,
it would be highly interesting to learn
from him at just what point in the grada-
tions Of motive and OF the character of
the persons concerned we are to draw
the line which separates Vigilante lynch
law, deliberately and methodically exc
cuted by the better citizens organized
illegally for that purpose, from the mob
lynch law spasmodically administered by
the sort of lynohers to whose case the
Justice now devotes his attention.
The dividing line might be a difficult
one to draw; Justice BREWER does not
attempt the delimitation.
The second interesting feature Of his
article is the remedy proposed. Justice
BREWER says:
8" n all were certain that the guilty ones would
he promptly tried and punished the nduccmpnt
TO lynch would he largely taken away In an ad-
dress which delivered before the American Bar
association at DsrroIt some wears since. sdvo-
Gated doing away with appeals in criminal cases
II did not meet the favor OF the association but
sim believe in Its wisdom"
This ia specific prescription, cour-
ageously submitted. The mature opin-
ion OF a jurist like the Hon. DAVID J.
BREWER of the Supreme Court OF the
United States, that appeals in criminal
cases ought to he abolshed-and he is
not speaking merely of such cases of
atrocious criminal assault as lead to
lynchings will command general atten-
tion, whatever expressions of dissent it
may provoke.
But it was high time for other eminent
Judges TO speak in defence of Aaw as it
is and due process Of law. At Chautau-
qua last week Chief Justice LORE Of
Delaware answered Justice BREWER
even before he had read the latters
remarkable words:
The raIm that because courts In any case rc
fuse to railroad the criminal TO the galows is
excuse for brutal lynching Is worthy OF con.
sidcrston before Intelligent people The mur-
derers and blatant demng0gues who may have in o.
cited them to murder may seek such excuse for
their act but they like the ostrich fleeing for shel-
ter, only bury their hcSds In tho sand and leave
their bodies exposed Any court Of Justice that
would listen to the mob and suffer II to prescribe
It's methods should DO abolished az q mockery OF
human justice. Tho more brutal tho crime the
more degraded the criminal. the widespread
and Intense tho public outrage the more Impera-
1.-Two It Ia that courts Of justice should give calm,
Just and fair hearing and that the guilt be- estab-
Ished. otherwise men may be punished for crime
thsy did not commit"
AT Chautauqua, also, Judge WooD-
WARD Of the Second Appellate Division of
the Supreme Court Of this State spoke
these words of truth and soberness:
The technical rules which arc made use OF by
tho guilty to delay shs day OF execution arc the
res which guarantee 10 tho Innocent the preser rva-
ton OF their lights. svon In the face OF popular
clauaor"
And again:
How foolish 70 undertake 70 determine the
efficiency Of the law by a reference to the time
which eiapses between the commission Of the crime
and the Anal action OF the jury"
The defendant has a right to every
protection and every delay which the
law affords. What chance Of justice has
a defendant tried Immediately in the
neighborhood where public opinion is
fierce against him and by jury which
sits in terror Of the mob2 Conviction so
obtained may be a deadlier stab at
Justice than the work Of any mob. If
the mob must kill man. better it should
Kill him than that law should be broken
and dishonored by robbing him of a
single safeguard to which he s entitled,