The Norfolk weekly news-journal. (Norfolk, Neb.) 1900-19??, 1907-04-19


vile incident into obscurity by means
OF the British DISTINGUISHING shadow,
If possible. Exaggerating the import
ance OF the British incident and iron
ically referring to the Brownsville af-
fair, the magazine has gone out of its
way to- draw a contrast that would
work to the disadvantage of the dis.
charged troops.
The British case involves the tenn.
porary Acknowledgement of city In
parliamentary representation because
IL was learned that there were 500 vot-
ers In that city who had accepted
brides for their votes, and that less
than these 500 votes turned the cleo.
ton. After much debating parlia.
ment determined to disfranchise the
city (Worchester 1t was) for this SEES.
sion because the people of that com
munity had tolerated bribery in the
ter up to the city again would be but
to invite defeat for the Liberal party
because that party had caused discus
sion of the patter after the election.
Golfers says that this Is enormously
more arbitrary than was the discharg.
ing Of three companies of negro SOL
diers in order to punish the guilty, be.
cause II was believed the three COM
panies contained the men guilty of
shooting up" Brownsville.
But the contrast does not show the
American act to have been the one of
minor importance. Where in England
1t was proven that bribery had turned
an election, in America there Is a
doubt expressed by competent sources
as to whether or not the three COM
panies of colored soldiers were really
guilty as charged. Where in England
the whole city loses a representative
in parliament for one term, in the
American instance the soldiers who
were innocent lose their rights to earn
ing livings in the army for all time,
to say nothing of the life pensions
which those who had been faithful in
the service for a Quarter of a century,
will lose. In England it was shown
clearly that not only were there brides
for election, but that the community
tolerated the practice and that the cor
ruption had become so general that
candidates expected before they went
into campaign that they would be
called upon to bride the several hun
dred who were known to the public at
large. All of these facts were brought
out in lengthy debate by parliament in
which the defense was represented.
And, convinced of the guilt, parlia-
ment, acting as a jury, could do moth
ing more than unseat the member who
had bought his election nor could the
matter be submitted to Worcester for
a new election in fairness to the party
which had caused the exposition to be
made.
In the real Brownsville case, things
were different. According to report
from Washington, where the investiga-
ton is being conducted, all of the ne
groes who have been put on the wit
ness stand have told the same story,
though they lacked an opportunity to
get together and concoct yarns that
would hang together; the officers, all
of them white, have without exception
declared that they believed the COM
pany of discharged soldiers to be in
nocent of the shooting up of Browns
vile; and stories told by Brownsville
people, who had protested against the
bringing of the Twenty-fifth to that
section, have varied as to detail.
1t may be proven in the end that the
three companies of colored soldiers
who were discharged contained the
men guilty of shooting up the town.
1t may not be proven. But the differ
ence between the British case and the
English case lies in the fact that in
England the charges were proven be-
fore Acknowledgement was melted out;
and the disfranchisement, while a loss
to certain extent which city will
feel for one session of parliament, did
not cost any innocent men personal
rewards for which they had worked
faithfully for twenty-five years, as is
possible, 1t must be admitted, in the
American Brownsville case.
The contrast in the two cases, con-
trary to the Collier insinuation. is not
one to the discredit of British methods
,, of seeking justice.
! ATTACKS PRIMARY LAW.