The Montgomery advertiser., 1909-06-04

generates ~ reasonable doubt as to
whether or not this man has been
getty Of fmpeachable conduct. think
this doubt exists from the evidence. re-
gardless Of the proof of his good char
aeter, but when II IL considered with
the very weak evidence Of the State.
much OF which has been procured
through paid detectives, there can be
but little doubt. that this man Is not
guilty OF impeachable conduct. The
undisputed evidence shows that for
twenty years he has been a brave and
FAITHFUL officer--true to his post In
most trying times. When but a deputy
he stood his ground and rlsked his life
In defense of negro rapist against
an outraged and maddened mob. Some
say he was standing by q brother dep
uty when he was killed, but ex-sheriff
Powers said he placed him in another
position because he was the bravest
and coolest man he had; yet We find a
majority OF the court convicting this
man, almost entirely, because he did
not accept Mr.. Webb's opinion, which
was not shared in by the respondent
himself. Judge Afford or any other wit
ness who testified in the case or by any
other man in the city, for that matter
as we ind no one Informing the sheriff
mayor or chief OF police Of any threat
ened danger. Notwithstanding there is
Law and Order League in the city,
and the members of which are pre-
sumed 10 have as high a regard for the
preservation Of human life as In fer
reting out petty offenses or in the con-
vietion OF this unfortunate and feeble
man.
Lynchings Are DepIored.
Lynchings are to be deplored and
have unfortunately been blot upon
modern civilization and the majesty of
the law should be upheld at all haz-
ards, and the trainers of the Constitu-
ton evidently prepared drastic means,
as to the sheriffs. as panacea for ex-
listing woes. and the removal of a sher-
In may have a very salutary influence
In the future. as was argued by coun-
sci Tor the State, but an unjust re-
moval Of man who has been elected
to a high ONCE by the people, doubtless
due to the fact. that he was a brave
and efhcient deputy, is to my mind a
great injustice.
The Constitution has singled out
sherfffs and holds them to a higher de-
gree of accountability for slighter mis-
conduct. than 1t does as to other ON
Gals. They are deprived Of right of
trial by jury of their peers--a right
sacred to all English speaking people.
The State has practically a change of
venue, with every means of defraying
the expenses of her witnesses. She has
been aided by an organization and
hired detectives. The respondent has
been removed from his home and
friends. has had to come nearly 200
miles to stand his trial and bring his
witnesses at his own expense: yet with
all these advantages in favor of the
State, we find this man convicted,
bankrupted and Inundated. because he
failed to act upon the opinion of one
man and neglected to tell his deputies
to close certain doors, customarily left
open. before going home.
This court sits as Jury as well as
judges and in the consideration of
facts should not lose sight OF the HUI
man phase of the case: what may APP
pear to them as neglect, when meas
ured with the exacting lines of their
training and theory. may be but an err
ror of judgment upon the part OF the
average citizen. who has had neither a
judicial or military training.
II dissent from the conclusion of the
majority and think that this respond
ent should be discharged"
Mayfield, J., concurs in the conclu-
sion OF Justice Anderson.