The Bamberg herald. [volume] (Bamberg, S.C.) 1891-1972, 1909-12-02

be hit by any sharp instrument, and
yet The State accepts as true his
statement that a blow on the back
| caused an eruption all over his body
and legs. l1 white defendant had
made the same statement, wouldn't
The State have jeered at it? But
| says The State: "Causey said to two
witnesses that he was to blame y
One witness testified that he said it.,
and said that another gentleman
equally as reputable was present at
| the time. That other gentleman
sWore positively that Causey made
| no such statement. Another witness
called by defendant swore positively
that Causey told him Hughes shot
him for nothing. But of course the
State will not believe them, because
Hughes said he shot when they were
on top OF him beating him. His own
step-daughter sWore she saw the pis-
tol fire from a height that would have
been impossible unless he was stand
ing up. But says The State, Hughes
said the two gentlemen went there
drunk and for an immoral purpose.
It would be of no use to say that re-
sponsible white men swore they were
sober a few minutes before, and that
Hughes himself swore that they had
never before been to his house. Nor
would it be Of use to call the editors
attention to his news column where it
appeared from testimony Of white
man that Hughes told Causey to come
to his house for some money he owed
him, and a steward in the Methodist
Hughes and The State, without hear
money in order to pay Causey that
night, and that five reputable men
swore that Hughes threatened to kill
Causey because he had helped to send
him to the penitentiary when he was
tried for killing a man before. All OF
this would be of no avail in justify
ing the verdict of the jury because
Hughes, who had other deaths to his
credit, said different. Sympatheti-
cally says The State, "one-legged and
manned in one hand" Does The
State know what became Of the fel-
low who made him one legged? Did
his one leg prevent him from killing
a man in Hampton just few years
ago? Did he tell the truth when
tried then? The jury said not and
convicted him and The State quar-
relied not. His victim was negro.
But this time a white man is killed.
Again the jury does not believe
Hughes and the State, without hear
ing the evidence, criticises the jury.
Had Hughes been white would The
State have believed he was bruised
when the witnesses testified he did
not complain the next day about be-
ing bruised and has nothing but a
80
skin eruption all over him?
But because the jury recommended
him The State says the jurors did not
believe The States witnesses. The
Jury recommended Jones, OF Union,
when they found him guilty of pois-
oning his own wife. Did they disbe-
lieve the witnesses for The Stae? That
Jury was not criticised by The State.
When a man named Lowe was con-
victed of choking his wife to death
in Aiken county, did the jury disbe-
lieve the States witnesses? The jury
were not criticised. When the fury
found Messervey guilty Of man
slaughter the witnesses had testified
to a case of murder Did that jury
disbelieve the witnesses? A jurys
verdict is reached by compromise in
most cases and occasionally one man
dictates the compromise.
The difficulty is that The State has,
because of one or two instances OF
Injustice to the negro, become so one
sloed and prejudiced that it now ac-
cepts the word of a negro with a
long criminal record in preference
to that of respectable white men,
supported by the physical facts. The
comment on this case is only one of
series of editorial articles which
lead US to the conclusion that The
State in endeavoring to sit on the
fence and honestly deal with both
races has lost it's balance and fallen
over on the negro side, to the great
harm Of the criminal negro who will
be led into the false belief that he is
martyr and that just because he IS
a negro, one of an inferior race, that
white jury should not punish him
but should condone his crimes. We
believe there should be no distinction,