The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-06-14
No Omcer Will Apprehend q Criminal
with Sword of Official Decapitati0n
Suspended by a Thread.
BRIEF FILED WITH HIGH COURT
SPENCER COUNTY SHERIFF DEFENDS
HIS ACTS IN DILLARD CASE.
Legislature Blamed for "Misguided
Zea1," and Yelled Attack Made on
Course Taken by Governor.

A brief has been filed in the Supreme
liam P. Maxwell VS.. John S. Dudley. This
IL the case that grew out of the lynching
Of James billiard, colored man in the
charge Of Dudley while sheriff of Sullivan
county. The Governor removed Dudley
from Office and refused to reinstats him.
William P. Maxwell, as coroner of Sulli-
van county. is seeking TO secure control of
the office of sheriff under law that gives
the coroner the right to take control of this
office when the sheriff has been removed
The Circuit Court of Sullivan county held
the law to be invalid. The brief is filed by
the appellee's attorneys and is in further
support of the contention that the law is
unsound.
'It is not remarkable" the brief says, in
referring to the law in question, that such
q statute has no fellow anywhere 1t would
be amazing If it had. Urged on by disap-
pointment in efforts to suppress mob vio-
lence. the Legislature in its misguided zeal
has been persuaded to adopt itself the flip
pant cry of the lynching mob, Hang him
first and try him afterward.' Indeed, it has
gone beyond the demand of the mob, in that
1t has not provided for trial at ALL but
only for an investigation before an execu-
tive officer, who may thereafter appoint il
he wishes. The proceeding is advisory to
the Governor. and does not lead to the
establishment of any right in the ex-officer
1t is not even an inquiry some weeks after
decapitation as to whether a man should
be beheaded, but an investigation of the
subject of giving him another life The
a 1f fD,-
to discover any decided case declaring a
statute like the one here involved to be
valid, and cases cited relate to legislation
widely different from the statute here
which, as we think, stands without prece-
dent parallel. The following provisions
of the Constitution of Indiana are involved
in this controversy: All courts shall be
open; and every man, for injury done to
him in his person, property or reputation
shall have remedy by due course of law
Justice shall be administered freely and
without purchase; completely and without
denial; speedily and without delay
PLEA OF DUDLEY.
Again the brief says: 1--WE have no dis
position to defend or extenuate such unlaw-
full proceedings. but our situation would be
infinitely worse if the law-making power
is itself permitted to break the law and
ruthlessly destroy rights and methods of
government sacred in our traditions and
sions Because mobs occasionally destroy
life without right legislature cannot be
justified in transgressing fundamental
law and doing much greater wrongs in the
effort to correct the evil
In conclusion the brief says: There is
no allegation in the complaint that the sher-
iff failed in his duty; there is no pretension
OF claim in the complaint that he did snot
resist the mob; there is contention that
he failed in any particular except that the
mob overwhelmed him and lynched his
prisoner. In all the whole wide range of
the complaint not one word is uttered show
ing negligence on the part of the appellee
The trend of legal presumption is that off,
GERS do their duty and before that presump-
tion is overthrown there should be some
thing more 10 appeal To the conscience OF
the court than the almost brutal declara-
ton that IL shall be conclusive evidence of
failure on the part of a sheriff to do his
duty when a mob of frenzied men, wrought
TO desperation because their wives have
been ravished in the presence of their terri
fed children by a black brute, overwhelms
the sheriff while in the discharge of his
duty and lynches the ravisher of those who
are dearer TO them than all the world .ber
side. If the sheriffs OF Indiana are to be
imperiled by such oppressive penalties and