The Richmond Virginian. (Richmond, Va.) 1910-1920, 1910-09-06
MILITARY LAWLESSNESS.

MILITARY LAWLESSNESS.
Officers of the First Regiment of Virginia
Volunteers contend, according 10 newspaper re-
9orts, that soldiers of their command who re-
surning from sham battle at The Fair Grounds
on Labor Day, created almost panic upon
crowded thoroughfare by firing guns from the
gindows Of street cars, were not subject TO arrest
hv the civil authorities. Policemen who, after
the disturbance had been INDUCED through many
ri1y blocks, asked commanding officers TO be per
mitted to arrest one of the offenders caught by
them ffagrante dehcta, were prevented from ex-
prcising the police powers OF the city TO sup
press disorder. Every circumstance connected
with the case indicated an attempt on tho part
ef responsible officers to shield the offenders
against common decency in their ranks The
police by not making an arrest, tacitly admitted
the truth Of the officers contention. Men who
were responsible for disorder to-day free and
inferentially justified in their conduct by of
tcers of an organization supposed to have its
chief function in the suppression of riot.
In any light, this is an unhearabe situation.
1t does not eomport with the theory Of a demo
cratic government that there should be an organ
zation asserting to itself special privileges and
mmunities above and apart from the ordinary
laws governing the people generally. 1t is neces-
sary that, to limited degree and in special in
stances. an effective military organization should
have such immunity. But it is equally neces-
sary if the military is TO be of value, that such
privilege should be rendered harmless by the
exercise of discretion which will in all cases
possible permit the civil authority to take and
exercise jurisdiction of ofenses against the pub
tic peace. And it is douby necessary that, ii
the military is to ever assert its jurisdiction TO
itself punish for such ot1enses, it should punish
promptly and effectively. The law relieving
militiamen from civil arrest while on duty was
passed for the purpose of rendering the militia
effective in the preservation of peace it not
contemplated that it should ever be construed
Into a license TO them 10 break the peace.
There is room for a question whether a con-
str,ctive duty follows militia in disorderly
return through the public streets after holiday
appearance in ranks. However that may be, it
ii clear that the officers who permitted disorder
of this character, by throwing their protection
about the offenders, themselves assume re-
sponsibility for the acts they condone. The pub
lie must be protected by one authority or the
other II the military, demanding immunity
from civil profess, refuses itself TO punish its
members for fragrant breaches of the peace, it is
organization of the militia upon less dangerous
terms.
We trust that every effort will be made to
bring the guilty soldiers 10 time, preferably in
the criminal courts of the civil authority which
they have fouted; if not then before the mill
tary courts Of the authority to which they have
looked for protection in thuggery. And certain
~ the higher military authorities in the State
ought 10 at once start searching and unsparinc
investigation into the conduct of officers appar-
entity lending themselves to protection of those
guilty Of gross breach Of city statutes.
On the day when the shooting by the militia
occurred, woman of the streets was fined fifty
dollars for firing a pistol into the air; members
of an organization created to suppress lawless-
ness fire repeatedly and unfortunately from
car windows, and are protected against arrest
for their acts. 1t is essential that there should
be once and for all clear understanding and
adjustment Of the law to prevent the repetition of
gross discrimination Of this character