The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1905-05-02
Is the Lynchiug OF Negroes a Fed
eral Crime?

Is the Lynching OF Negroes Fed
eral Crime?
The Supreme Court Of the United
States has just made an order advancing
upon its docket a case which appears
there under the title Of Err Pdrte RIG0INs
and is an appeal from an order Of the
United States Circuit Court in the
Northern District Of Alabama, in habeas
corpus proceedings, refusing to dis
charge the prisoner. The case is one
Of great general interest, especially to
the inhabitants Of the Southern States
OF the Union, because it presents the
question whether the Federal courts
have jurisdiction TO punish lynching as
a crime against the United States where
the victim is a negro.
The right to exercise this power on the
part Of the Federal courts is asserted to
exist under the Thirteenth, Fourteenth
and Fifteenth amendments to the Fed
eral Constitution The indictment in
the HIGGINS case charged the defendant,
THOMAS NJ. RIGGINs Of Madison county,
Ala, and other persons with con-
spiracy and acts done in furtherance OF
a conspiracy to deprive negro named
HORACE NAPLES Of the rights, priv
ileges and immunities secured TO him
by the Constitution and laws OF the
United States. It alleged that NAPLES,
negro citizen, was lawfully confined
by the Sheriff Of Madison county,
Ala, in the county jail, to answer a
charge Of murder which had been pre-
ferred against him under the laws Of
the State, that the Sheriff and a detach-
ment of the Alabama National Guard
were endeavoring safely TO keep NAPLES
in prison and 20 prevent the defendant
conspirators from hanging him, in or
der that he might have trial accord
ing 70 law. and that the defendant con-
spirators in the city OF Huntsville went
upon the highways and streets and
murdered NAPLES by hanging him by
the neck until he was dead all these
acts being alleged 20 have been done
in order to injure NAPLES in the en-
joyment Of his right to be tried by due
process Of law and acquitted if inno-
cent. The indictment contained further
allegations to the effect that all the acts
of the defendant we're induced by race
hostility TO the victim Of the lynching
and with a purpose to deprive him Of the
ENJOYMENT Of a civil right accorded by
law to all white freemen,
This indictment was found by Federal
Grand Jury sitting in the Circuit Court
of the United States for the Northern
District OF Alabama. Contending that
only the State tribunals had jurisdiction
of such an offense as that charged in
the indictment, the defendant, THOMAS
NJ. RIoGINs, sued out a writ Of habeas
corpus in the Circuit Court and asked
to be discharged from custody on the
ground that the crime charged was not
cognizsble or punishable under the
Constitution and laws OF the United
States. The application was heard before
the Hon. T. G. JONES Of Montgomery,
United States District Judge for the Nor
thern and Middle Districts Of Alabama
Judge JONES denied the prayer Of the
petition and remanded the defendant to
custody, holding in long and carefully
written opinion that the Federal courts
had jurisdiction This decision will
shortly be reviewed by the Supreme
Court at Washington, under the order
made last week to advance the case TO
a speedy hearing
So far a. the opinions Of the United
States Supreme Court heretofore de-
livered throw any light upon the ques-
ton involved in this matter, they must
be regarded as adverse 20 the claim Of
Jurisdiction which has been sustained
by the Alabama District Judge. The
effect Of the Fourteenth Amendment was
considered in the case OF the United
States against HARRIS, decided in 1882.
That amendment declares that all
persons born or naturalized in the United
States and subject TO the Jurisdiction
thereof are citizens OF the United States
and Of that State wherein they reside.
No State shall make or enforce any law
which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities Of citizens OF the United
States, nor shall any State deprive any
person Of life, liberty or property without
due process Of law, nor deny 10 any
person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection Of the laws II also en-
PAYERS Congress 20 enforce the pro-
visions Of the amendment by appro-
pirate legislation
The Supreme Court in the Harris case
declared this provision 20 be simply
guaranty Of protection against the acts
Of State Governments. 1t lie a guaranty
against the exertion Of arbitrary and
tyrannical power on the part Of the Gov