The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1907-06-17
RIGHT TO PUNISH LYNCHERS
TEST CASE NOW BEFORE THE 4. S.
SIPREHE COURT.
First Action TAX en- 10y the Government
Under the Law Enacted by the Last
Congress Giving II the Right 10 Appeal
In Certain Glasses OF Criminal Gases.

First Action TAX en by the Government
Under the Law Enacted by the Last
Congress Giving II the Right TO Appeal
In Certain Glasses OF Criminal Gases.
WASHINGTON. June 8.-The first appeal
taken by the Government under the law
enacted by the last Congress giving the
United States the right of appeal in certain
classes OF criminal cases was docketed in
the Supreme Court recently. 1t 30 hap
pens that the case is of great Importance to
the Southern States. where State rights
are more zealously guarded perhaps and
lynchings are prevalent. for it is a test case
to determine whether the Federal Govern
ment, under the power conferred by tho
Fourteenth Amendment, has the right to
punish lynchers where the State authorities
fail to act.
The case grew out Of the action OF n mob
at Huntsville, Ala, in September, 1904,
in storming the county jail, which was
guarded by the Sherif's deputies and a
whole company OF the Alabama State
militia, and taking Horace Naples, a colored
man charged with the murder OF a white
farmer from the structure and hanging
him in the court house yard. When the
State authorities made little or no effort
TO punish the offenders the Federal officials
stepped in and endeavored to bring them
to book on the ground that they had con-
spired to deprive Naples, as a citizen OF
African descent, of the rights guaranteed
him by the Constitution to a trial by jury,
and by the Fourteenth Amendment, to
endowment Of civil equality before the law
with the white race.
The Federal Grand Jury indicted four
members of the mob-Robert Powell,
ranrro Eronna Gilaa Warlau and Thpmaa
Riggin-for violating a law enacted to carry
the Fourteenth Amendment into effect by
conspiracy TO deprive any person of civil
rights. punishable by ten years lmprison-
ment. a fine OF s., 900 and Acknowledgement.
Before the trial took place Riggin sought
his release from custody by writ of habeas
corpus, contending that his arrest was
illegal, for the reason that the ohense for
which he was indicted was not punishable
by Federal law. The Supreme Court.
without passing on the merits of his con-
%tention, dismissed his appeal. on the ground
that such a writ was not Il proper remedy.
In the meantime proceedings had been
instituted against Sheriff Ship OF Chat
tanooga and eighteen members OF a mob
for contempt of the Supreme Court by
lynching Ed johnson, a negro, while he
was nominally in it's custody and protection
through the granting OF a writ OF error
to review his case. and the Huntsville in
dict were held in allegiance for some
llllN III NV wi wa WV hhAi NN'N''h
involved would be settled in the contempt
case.
There being little prospect OF IN early
determination of the Shipp case, the Gov
eminent again took up the Naples matter in
April and made a test case Of the indictment
against Robert Powell, whose petition for
a sepa rate trial had been granted. Pow
ellis demurrer that the offence charged was
punishable by the State alone, not being one
against the United States, was sustained by
Judge Jones, in whose district the trial took
place,
In his opinion Judge Jones says very
frankly that that action was contrary to
his Judgment and wa only taken because
he felt impelled to follow the Supreme
Court in deciding what are known "a the
"whitecapping' cases. which involved a
similar question as to the right of the Gov
eminent TO punish for the denial OF civil
rights where the Arkansas authorities
failed to prosecute. As he viewed that de-
cision the Supreme Court held that the
Fourteenth Amendment permitted the Fed
eral Government to interfere only when
there was a denial by the State itself, or
by Its officers Of the right secured by the
Constitution and laws, and in IA case like
that of Naples IL was powerless against
the ewlessness Of private individuals
which frustrated the States efforts TO
perform its constitutional duty.
Judge Jones holds that there is no conflict
with State avs in this; instance. as il was
UNREASONABLE that the same physical act
might constitute an offence OF an entirely
different legal nature and in consequence
against the laws both Of the State and OF
the United States.