The sun., 1910-06-15

According 10 an artiole ia the EreRiHg
, Post an American citizen of the negro
race rs presently 10 suffer death a. the
hands OF the law in South Carolina be-
cause the Supreme Court of the United
States has refused b reverse the judg-
ment on account Of a technicality which
did not prejudice the rights Of the peO-
pie This is rather a severe charge for
a journal Of repute 10 make against the
highest tribunal Of the land. aud it is
worth while 70 inquire how far il il war
ranted by the facts
4 negro named PINK FRANKLIN waa
convicted in South Carolina of the crime
oi murder, for shooting and killing a
constable while the officer was attempt
ING 10 arrest the defendant upon a war
rant charging him with having violated
and broken an agricultural contract.
The warrant was based upon a South
Carolina statute which subjects a laborer
to fine or Imprisonment u he fails % per-
form his contract of service after having
received any part d his compensation
in advance. Il is a veritable peonage
law and has been pronounced uncon-
stitutioual by the supreme Court Of
South Carolina itself Inasmnch, there
fore. a. the officer when killed was at
tempting 20 arrest the defendant under
en- unconstitutional statute, Il was the
contention Of his counsel that the q, o
fendant had the right to resist. even to
the extent Of taking human life. The
only manner in which he presented this
legal proposition 10 the trial court, how
ever, was by request for peremptory
instruction 10 the jury 10 acaut the
accused. The supreme Court Of the
United States held that s'lch an instruc-
tion would have been improper in view
~ the proof by the State 20 the effect
that the accused. without any warning
or resorting 10 any other means Of ne
is,ance. aud after the constable had
invoked for admission, shot the officer
uron his entering the open door armed
with a supposed warrant Of arrest. .
Our contemporary says there was no
dispute as 20 the facts. but Mr.. Justice
DAT tells us that The testimony offered
for the State and that offered for the
plaintiff ia error differed widely a. 10
what occurred at the time the constable
was shot
NOW We cannot -ee that there waS
anything gechmcal at all IN holding that
upon the evidsRcs the case was one
which the trial Judge was bound N
submit o. the jury. The ErsEiHg Post
deals with Il az though the supreme
Jourt had said that there we're errors
demanding a reversal of the judgment
but the court could not reverse becanss
NJ appropriate obiections and ezcep-
tons we're taken. II s true Mr.. Justice
DAY does say that m advantage was
sought % b. taken of the uncoUNtitu-
tiOnalI'y Of the statute otherwise than
by the request 70 direct an acquittal
but when the supreme Court n the
United States holds that the case should
have been left 70 the jury In any even,
q necessarily decides that the uncon-
.titutiOnality n the peonage law did not
Justify NJ eSo'ise the killing Of the Ofioer
undsr The circumstance and in The
.nannsr narrated by the witnesses FOR
ths prosecution No doubt Il counsel
had requested he wOuld have been en-
titled 70 have the jury instructed a. %
tn extent ~ which the defendant might
laWfuIly resist the threatened arrest