Bisbee daily review., 1920-03-13

as old as our law and as enduring as humanity.
 The defense is based upon two prop ositious, the law of self defense. and the law of necessity. If the case were one of self defense alone, little or noth- ing would need to be said in upholding it, because all laws and courts defend it. We think, however, that the fact that many are involved in this trial, and in ensuing actions, does not change the governing law in the case. The right of one man to defend him self or his dependents is not abridged because two are jointly or severally attacked or more than two are attack ed, and it is condition that will be asserted with all earnestness that the same defense is perfectly valid when Invoked for an entire community.
 '"The right Of a community to de- fond itself against men, armed or un- armed, who may imperil the lives and property of that community, is prin ciple that is as firmly established as that of any in our jurisprudence. Akin to it, and yet different, is the law of necessity. founded in reason and al most impossible to define or limit. One of the writers to whom we will call at tention says that the law of self de- , fenSe is the right to defend ourselves from the aggression of another, and that the law of necessity protects us in the invasion of the rights of others. The origin of one is in a primal in stinct. stronger than any other except f that necessity which is created by giv- ing our lives for our families and friends. the other as appears in this case. has it's origin in the maxim. The safety of the public is the SUI prcme law"
 Belief that these principles govern the case and that upon these princi. pies the case must be defended, as well as that the action of July F, 1917, was rendered necessary by conditions then existing, is the foundation of this defense. We will show that the lives of the community in the Warren Dis trict were imperilled, that their prop erty was in jeopardy, and more than all this, that the capacity of the united States, then at war, and assuming Ine responsibilities of almost the entire world. was in danger.
 When a man is attacked by another and protects himself by taking the life of the aggressor. he has right to show the conditions which obtained at the time of his act, even the apparent conditions. such as previous threats. declaration of purpose. the character of the man, all the things that show the necessity for defending himself or an apparent necessity.
 From this we reach the conclusion that when a community. the law abid- ing and the peaceful community. has been the subject of threats of violence il these threats have been communi- cated by the officers of the law. it the body of aggressors is sufficient in nun bers to carry out those threats, if the consummation of the purpose of that body is part of q well defined scheme throughout tho country to achieve a common end, we have the right to show that the aggresscrs had intended such things as the community had q right to protect itself against.
 If l can shoot an assailant down, have I not also a right to tie him down? If have that right. my neigh bors have the same right and when it is extended to hundreds and to thou sands it is not abridged.
 If the aggresSors were of m organ ization numbering thousands united by q common purpose; if they had deter mined at a certain time to remove the members of that community, to de-. stroy their property and to endanSer their lives. could not action be taken against them?
 Can't he questioned that ii the pur- pose ot that organization had becn enunciated at its meetings, if it was common purpose, extending from Can ada io Me@ieo aud having as it's end the destruction Of this government it.