The Denison review. [volume] (Denison, Iowa) 1867-current, 1910-09-14
MOB LAW AND MOB LAW.


terpreted in this section is that every
man shall be considered innocent un-
til he is proven guilty. We endeavor
and in large measure we do accord
this to the meanest criminals. We
believe Senator Lorimer was entitled
to this treatment, not only by Colonel
Roosevelt, but by the members of the
Hamilton club, of which the Illinois
senator is member. The fact that
Browne, the man who is said to have
had charge of the bribery for Senator
LOrimer, has been twice tried and
once acquitted upon this charge, gives
color to the thought that Mr.. Roose-
welt could we'll have afforded to have
waited the process of the courts and
the already appointed investigating
committee before pronouncing Senator
Lorimer guilty in the slap-dash, grand
stand fashion in which he did.
Under the circumstances, Mr.. Roose-
velt's preachment in favor of claw anG
order" at Columbus, Ohio, the follow
ing day, loses much of it's force. Mr.
Roosevelt took the law into his own
hands and attempted to execute Sen.
ator Lorimer morally, with the same
controlling motive that impels the
mob to take justice into it's hands and
to physically execute an alleged Grim
inal before the courts have acted.
Colonel Roosevelt has frequently
and strenuously excoriated mob VIC
lence, but is it not the same thing ae
involved in the LOrimer case? The
mob, believing man guilty impatient
with the courts, actuated by what ii
considers high idea of justice, driv.
en- by an outraged sense of public
decency, drags it's victim from the jail
and hangs him to the nearest pole.
Colonel Roosevelt, believing Senator
Lorimer guilty, impatient with the
courts, actuated by what he consid.
cred a high idea of justice and driv.
en- by an outraged sense of public
decency, dragged Senator Lorimer
forth and hanged him to the pole of
public contumely. What is the differ.
ence? Are not both examples of mob
law? The fact that the wretch who
was hung or the senator who was pill,
loried may be guilty does not affect
the case. On the ground that mob law
is sometimes justifiable, perhaps Col
Roosevelt was also justifiable. But is
not the man who would act as jury,
judge, and executioner in one case,
debarred from advising the outraged
laborers to be patient, not to take the
law into their own hands, but to leave
the matter to the duly constituted
courts?
OF course, man has a right to
choose his own company, but even this
right must be exercised with regard
to the rights of others. In this case
Mr. Roosevelt could easily have ascer.
tanned, probably weeks in advance,
that Mr.. Lorimer would be invited to
attend the Chicago banquet. Every,
one else expected it. Why should it
not have dawned upon Roosevelt until
the very day? Due regard for the feel.
iHgs of his host would have urged
any common man to have indicated
quietly and as far in advance as pos
sible if he could not meet another
guest in the house of a friend. This
would have been the proper and the
courteous course and would have re.
lieved his hosts, to whom he certain
iy owed it, of the difficulties and EN-
| barrassments which now beset them
In short, he who advises patience
must be patient. He who advises 9th
ers to await the action of the courts
must be prepared to do likewise. He
who advises others to follow the die
tates of law and order must not hold
himself above the law. He who &C
cepts the hospitality of a host must
not forget the obligation of guest.
But Roosevelt is Roosevelt; we love
him in spite of his impetuosity, his
inconsistencies and his ebullitions OF
wrath. We love him because we be
lieve his Interior motives are good
motives. We love him because we be