The Manning times. [volume] (Manning, Clarendon County, S.C.) 1884-current, 1915-08-25
wooirld Why q man should be Tried
In the eoiurts than that he should

wl16oirld Why 4 man should be Tried
in the courts than that he should
have justice given him. The
verdict found is not to be accord
ing to public opinion. There may
be those in sufficient numbers
together themselves about the
court house and promise violence
unless the verdict is according
to their opinions and feelings.
But shall the mob embarrass
the court and influence 1t in its
proceedings: In such instances
is the man being tried by the
Icourt or the mob? To what ex-
tent is the court a party with
the mob and lawlessness in al
lowing itself to be Influenced by
the ones who threaten violence
unless a certain verdict is rem
dered? Surely the court is not
to surrender to the irresponsible
and lawless, but is to proceed IN
such a way as to impress all with
its dignity and integrity, and
that justice shall not be pervert
ed bat dispensed to all alike. It
lis in no wise gratifying to the
public for a Judge to express mis-
doubts of guilt after the trial is
over and a verdict of guilty has
been rendered. The time for him
to speak and express his doubts
is when the trial is in progress,
or else ever hold his tongue. A
Judge should not be swerved
from what he knows to be right,
nor should he fail to protect the
prisoner from what he has a
feeling is wrong so far as ne has
authority. 1t does not become
any Judge to hear a case and be
convinced that a verdict of man
slaughter should be rendered,
and allow a verdict of murder
come in, but afterwards write
the governor that a verdict OF
manslaughter should have been
rendered unless he made himself
clear in his charge. No conces-
sions should be made to the
threat of the mob by the court.
Better order out the militia and
disperse the threatening mob
and violence than that any one
should have reasons to question
the integrity of the courts.
The governor should not cast
any reflections upon the courts
in the exercise of his pardoning
power, or in the matter of ex-
tending Executive clemency.
After courts have given a man
all the hearing possible, and
have been controlled and guided
by the law and the facts in the
case and have found a verdict OF
guilty. how can the governor
Justify his extending Executive
clemency? Grant that he re.
views all the facts and goes
over all the proceedings and
says that he finds sufficient
grounds or evidence to cause
him to doubt the guilt OF the
man condemned. One of two
things is mauifestly true-those
conducting the courts were
either incompetent or unwilling
to find evidence in favor OF the
man who was tried. The courts
or the Governor one must be at
fault. It does not seem that
both can be right. 1t would not
seem that the courts would con-
demn a man to death unless all
the facts warranted them in Go.
ing so, nor does it seem reason
able that Governor would in
such a case extend Executive
clemency unless it was true, as
he claims, that he found sufh-
cient evidence in favor of the
condemned man to justify MIN IN
his action. IL any event
whether the courts or the Gov
ernor were at fault the reign Of
the mob strikes terror into the
hearts and minds of all civiliza-
ton. If the Governor is right
and justified in his action, there
is reason to doubt whether or
not a man can get justice in the
courts. The courts, therefore,
enter in as one explanation of
lawlessness and mob violence.
# the courts were right, then
the Governor is in a measure
the cause of a deplorable hap