Case Name: UNITED STATES v. SHIPP
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1909-05-24
Citations: 214 U.S. 386
Docket Number: No. 5
Parties: UNITED STATES v. SHIPP.
Judges: Me. Justice Moody did not hear the argument and took no part in the disposition of the case.
Reporter: United States Reports
Volume: 214
Pages: 386–485

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES v. SHIPP.
-INFORMATION IN CONTEMPT.
No. 5, Original.
Argued March 2, 3, 1909.
Decided May 24, 1909.
The court,, having already, held, 203 U. S. 563, that the information sufficiently set forth a contempt of the court tp punish which the court has jurisdiction, now finds on the testimony- taken under its direction that certain of the defendants named were guilty óf the . contempt as charged and directs -that attachments issue against . them, and that the defendants not found guilty be discharged.
Where a riot and the lawless acts of those engaged' therein are the direct result of - opposition to the administration of the law by this court, those who defy its mandate and participate in, or who knowingly fail to take the proper means within their official power and duty to prevent, acts of violence having for their object to, and which do, defeat the action of this court are guilty of, and must be punished for, contempt.
One, who after conviction by the state court has applied'to the Federal court for his release on habeas corpus on the ground that he was denied due process of law is remanded by the Federal court to the custody of the sheriff to be detained for a specified time in which to enable him to prosecute an appeal to this court, is held under § 766, Rev. Stat., as a Federal prisoner and the sheriff is accountable to the Federal courts; and, to the extent of his power and the means under his control, he must exercise due diligence and reasonable efforts to protect the prisoner from mob violence, and if, after this court has granted an appeal, he negligently fails in his duty in this behalf, he is guilty of contempt.
Knowledge of an allowance by this court of an appeal and a stay of proceedings renders those who defy the mandate of the court and so conduct themselves as willfully to defeat., the administration of the law liable for contempt.
This court having allowed an appeal from an order of a Circuit Court discharging a writ of habeas corpus and remanding the prisoner to the custody of the sheriff to be held for a specified period for prosecution of the appeal, the. sheriff and his deputies and the jailer, who , had knowledge of such allowance of appeal and also of an intense feeling in the neighborhood against the prisoner which on previous occasions had threatened his safety, were bound to use all means within their power to.protect him, and failure on their part to take any precautions whatever to prevent the seizure and killing of the prisoner at the hand of a mob attacking the jail while in a defenseless condition was, under the circumstances of this case, willful negligence, and disregard of duty to, and contempt of, this court; and so held as tof the sheriff of Hamilton County, Tennessee, and his deputy and the jailer, in conheetion with the lynching on March, 19, 1906, of Ed Johnson by a mob after this court had allowed his appeal from an order refusing relief on habeas corpus.
Those of a mob who attack a state jail and lynch a person held therein as a Federal prisoner .under an order of this court of which they have had notice are guilty of contempt of this court.
The facts, which involve the lynching of a person held in the custody of a sheriff under -an order of the Federal court and after., an appeal had been allowed by. this court from .an order of the United States Circuit Court denying his petition for habeas'corpus, are stated in the opinion.
• ’ Mr. Attorney General Bonaparte, and Mr. Solicitor-General Hoyt, with whom Mr. Edwin W. Lawrence, Special Assistant to the Attorney General, was on the brief for the United States:
This is an information in contempt filed by the Attorney General of the United States charging the defendants with contempt of this court in lynching the negro Ed Johnson at Chattanooga oh March 19, 1906, on the ground that he was at that time a prisoner in the jail under order of this court and that the lynching was in direct defiance of the known order of this court and to prevent the administration of the law by it.
The information appears at length, pages 439-444, post.
Certain preliminary questions .of law were raised by defendants and passed upon by this court, 2Ó3 U. S. 563. It was there held that the complaint sufficiently set forth a contempt qf this court; that it was immaterial for the purposes of this proceeding whether or not the Circuit Court had jurisdiction of the habeas corpus proceedings or whether this court had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal; and that the answers of the defendants under oath- disavowing intent did not purge them. This decision removes from the case all questions of law except those as to the admission of evidence,. The question now before the court is one of fact: Has the United States in the evidence, which has been taken by the commissioner under order of this court, proved the’allegations of the information? - Most of . those allegations, are established by agreement or undisputed evidence. The' only' issues are: (1) Were the' sheriff and’his deputies informed, and did they have every reason to believe that an attempt' would be made in the evening of March 19, by a mob.to break into, and take Johnson from, the jail for the purpose of lynching him? (2) Did the sheriff and his deputies commit acts and do .things manifesting a purpose and disposition on their part to render it less difficult and less dangerous for the mob to lynch Johnson and aid and abet the mob? . (3) Were defendants, excepting Shipp and Gibson, members of the mob which lynched Johnson, or did they participate in the conspiracy? (4) Did defendants in the things they did intend to show contempt of the order of this court.and to prevent it from hearing Johnson’s appeal?
The information alleges that the acts of the defendants were done with intent to show their contempt and utter disregard for the order of this’ court, and in order to prevent this court from hearing the. appeal of Johnson then under condemnation of death and who had been remanded by the Circuit Court to the custody of the sheriff pending the action of this court which had granted the appeal. In delivering the opinion upon the hearing of the preliminary questions of law, 2,03 U. S. 563,-Mr. Justice Holmes said:
“ If the presence and acts should be proven, there would be little room for the disavowal of intent. ... It may be found that what created the mob and led to the crime was the unwillingness of its members to submit to the delay required for the appeal. From that to the intent to prevent that delay and the hearing of the appeal is a short step.”
Intent is best proved, and in'many cases can only be proved, by acts. If the acts with which defendants are charged have been proven, it needs no argument to demonstrate that defendants intended to prevent this court hearing Johnson’s appeal and to delay its mandate. It has already, been shown that the reason for the mob’s action was fear of the law’s delay and the unwillingness of the sheriff, his deputies, and the members of the mob to submit to it. The intent to commit a contémpt of this court was necessarily present in the acts of the ,defendants'.
■This proceeding is unique in the history of Courts.
Its importance cannot be overestimated. Lynchings have •occurred in defiance of state laws and state. courts without attempt, or at most with only desultory attempt, to punish the lynchers. ’Perpetrators of .such crimes have heretofore been censured'only by'public opinion; courts have remained silent. Powerful as such opinion always is, severe as it has been in its rebuke of such deeds, it has. been inadequate to check these outbreaks of lawlessness. Only recently lynchings became so ’numerous that the whole country was aroused, tó earnest discussion of mob violence and a remedy for .it. It is indeed useless, to seek relief unless the judiciary can punish those who snatch and kill the men it has imprisoned. The arm of justice fetters men for years. It strikes death to the murderer. It can take property and life. Must it confess it is too weak to protect those whom'it has confined? The arm can destroy. Can it not protect? If the life of one whom the law has taken into its custody is at the mercy of a mob the administration of justice becomes a mockery.
When this court granted a stay of execution upon application of Johnson, it became its duty to protect him until his case should be disposed of. It matters not with what crime he was charged.. It is immaterial what the evidence was at the trial.' Sentenced to deathyJohnson came into this court alleging that his constitutional rights had been invaded in the trial of his case, and upon this the Supreme Court said he had a right to-be, and would be, heard. From that moment until his case, should be decided, he was under-the protection'of this court. And when its mandate; issued For his protection,'is defied, punishment of those guilty of such contempt-must, be certain and severe.
Never in its history has an order of this court been, disobeyed with impúnity. Á few attempts to disregard its decrees have been made, but always without ultimate avail. ■ In 1779 the.: Continental Congress, through,its Standing Committee of Appeals in- Cases of Capture, reversed the judgment of the Court-of Admiralty of the State of Pennsylvania and made an award in favor of Olmstead, a claimant, in a prize case. The State resisted enforcement of the decree and Congress yielded. Olmstead thus found, the decision of the appellate tribunal in his favor useless to him. With the adoption of the- Constitution the jurisdiction of appeals formerly exercised by the. Continental Congress became vested in this court and- in 1808 Olmstead sought redress here in the same matter. United States v. Peters, 5 Cranch, 115. In one of his powerful opinions the great Chief Justice made it clear that the court’s decrees in favor of Olmstead must be obeyed. Nevertheless the State for a time defied the order. This resistance, however, was unable to withstand the unswerving determination of this court and finally disappeared. .Members and officers of the state militia who had interfered with, execution of the decrees were tried and sentenced to fine and imprisonment. This court then declared and established a supremacy which- has ever since been maintained and which will always be a priceless heritage to the American people.-
In the. controversy between the State of Georgia and the Cherokee Indians, which came before this court in Worcester v. Georgia, 6 Pet. 515, the State refused to release a prisoner in obedience to a direction of this court. Although the National Executive declined to aid in requiring obedience, after some months the State withdrew opposition and again the supremacy of this court was recognized.
• In the history of the case of Ableman v. Booth, 21 Howard, 506, we for a third time find evidence of a State arraying itself against this court. Officers and courts of the State of Wisconsin, contrary to the decision of this court, insisted that the fugitive-slavé law was unconstitutional, and resisted its enforcement. But the outcome was the same. Finality of decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States was declared, and obedience to its order was compelled.
It is not surprising that in the early.history,of this- country, when-the jurisdictions of the Federal and the state governments were not clearly defined or well understood, States should have resisted the-orders of this, court. But it is remarkable that individuals should now undertake to défy the mandate of this great tribunal.
Justice is at an end when orders of the highest and most powerful court in the land are set at naught. Obedience to its mandates is essential to our institutions. Contempts such as this strike down the supremacy of law arid order and undermine the .foundations of our Government. Recurrence of such acts must be prevented. The commission of the- offense has been established, and punishment should be. imposed in accordance with its gravity..
. Mr. James J. Lynch and. Mr. Moses H. Clift, with, whorp Mr. Judson Harmon, Mr. Robert Pritchard, Mr. William D. Spears and Mr. Robert B. Cooke were on the brief, for defend'-, ant Shipp:
The testimony shows that Sheriff Shipp did not conspire, aid or abet the lynchers and did not fail in his duty to take proper precautions to guard him.
It is alleged in the information that the prisoner had been heavily guarded until the night of the lynching and that the guards were purposely withdrawn in order'to permit the lynching. The record' shows that the jail had not been guarded- with extra guards after Johnson's conviction on February 9. During the. time he had remained in the jail after his return from Knoxville, there had been no extra guard at the jail.
In their brief, counsel for the Government seem to bring a wholesale' indictment against the whole citizenship of Chattanooga and-Hamilton County. The undisputed testimony of. dozens of witnesses' is swept aside by the simple announcer ment that it is absurd and ridiculous. The testimony of gray-haired ministers, of veteran physicians, of. merchants,' manu-. facturers, and officials, is all .treated in the same manner. To all of these, ^counsel for the Government say:
“It is absurd for the defendants.and their witnesses to say that' the community was in a state of peaceful repose on March 19 or preceding jdays. It is idle for-them to say that they did not apprehend mob violence to Johnson.”
And yet this fact is testified to by numerous witnesses for the Government and denied by no witness.
Judge McReynolds and Attorney-General -Whittaker are also severely criticised by counsel for the Goye-rnment. Just why, it is hard to understand. These gentlemen first sounded the alarm on the night of the lynching. Walking the streets about nine o’clock and noticing a suspicious gathering .at the jail, they-went to the office of the Chattanooga Times and notified the editor and reporters of what was going on — called the sheriff and requested him to go to the relief of the prisoner —’phoned^ to the office of the chief of police — and, in fact, did everything that could have reasonably been expected of any citizen under the circumstances.
Judge McReynolds treated Johnson with every consideration throughout the whole proceeding. He appointed able counsel to defend him, and after his conviction, appointed a committee of other able counsel to confer with his attorneys and render such assistance and advice as the cas,e demanded. When counsel were appointed and before Johnson was tried, Judge McReynplds and the-Attorney-General had the sheriff submit to the counsel appointed to defend Johnson all of the evidence the State- had against the accused and also give Johnson’s counsel the names of the witnesses for the State— a consideration for the defendant seldom, if ever before, shown in the criminal courts of this State.
After Johnson .was lynched, Judge McReynolds delivered a strong charge to the grand jury, instructing that body'to indict all -those engaged in the lynching. Both he and- - Attorney-General Whittaker did everything possible to procure indictments. ■ That the -grand' jury failed to indict any of the lynchers is not. strange in view of the difficulty that the Government, with all of its agents and detectives, have had' in establishing the identity of those engaged in the lynching. These splendid officials need no defense at our hands. But it is quite a coincidence that counsel for the' Government in their brief, criticise-'most severely those who did the most to avoid the lynching of Johnson..
As before stated, it is possible that • Captain Shipp acted with poor judgment on the night .of the lynching. It is easy to see now that he should have had the jail guarded and should have been prepared for a mob. But if he had done so, he would have been wiser and would have shown more foresight than any other- citizen of Chattanooga. •
It is easy to see. now, looking back over events as they occurred on that night, that Captain Shipp, instead of going to the jail, should have gone to police headquarters or the armory, where the militia were drilling, and. organized a posse-. It must be remembered, however, that Captain Shipp did not have time-to carefully consider the situation and coolly decide the best course to pursue. He was called up in the night and told by the prosecuting attorney that he should go at once to the jail — the Attorney-General showed just as poor judgment as did Captain Shipp. The Attorney-General was in conference with several other.gentlemen, including the Criminal Judge, and in requesting the sheriff to go at once to the jail, he (the Attorney-General) spoke not only for himself, but for the other gentlemen present, showing that in the excitement of the moment, all of them were guilty of the.same error of judgment that Captain Shipp was.
The testimony heretofore cited shows that Mr. Spurlock, who wfas with the judge and Attorney-General, after thinking the' matter over, concluded that it would be foolish and, perhaps; dangerous, for the sheriff to rush into the jail alone, and knowing Captain Shipp’s temperament, hfe knew he would attempt to do this. For this reason, they attempted to intercept the sheriff, but failed to do so..
Certainly Captain. Shipp cannot, be convicted for contempt of this court simply because'in the performance of his duties, he exercised bad judgment., He says,- himself, that if he had the thing to go over again he, perhaps, would know better what to do, and would act differently, but at that time he acted on the spur of the moment and had gone to the jail for the purpose of seeing what the trouble was and to do what he could to protect the prisoner.
Captain Shipp denied, in his testimony, all the charges in the information with reference to a conspiracy with those engaged in the lynching. He denied any intention to aid or abet, in any way, those engaged in the killing of Johnson. He denied that he anticipated or had any reason to anticipate or expect a mob on the night of March 19. He insisted that he had the very greatest respect for this- honorable court and had done no act, and omitted no duty, from which a contrary conclusion could be drawn.
Captain Shipp has lived in Chattanooga since 1874. During that time he has been engaged in various business enterprises. During the time he has lived in Chattanooga he has been connected with various public affairs in that city. He was a Confederate soldier, and has, for many years, been a member of the Confederate Veterans’ organization, and is quartermaster general of the entire organization. He was on the staff of the late Gen. John B. Gordon and the late Gen. Stephen D. Lee. He has been a Mason for over forty years and a' member of numerous other secret societies. He was also tax assessor for Hamilton County, Tennessee, before elected to the position of sheriff. His splendid character is testified to by every witness whose testimony has been referred to in this brief. Old men and young men, political friends and political adversaries, ministers of all denominations, veterans of the Civil War who wore the blue and who wore the gray, men of all classes and all persuasions who have known Captain Shipp during his long life in Chattanooga, all, in one voice, say to this court that he is a truthful, law- abiding, honorable gentleman. Can this court say that a man with such a character and such a record, would suddenly, without any motive whatever, betray his trust, sacrifice the life of a prisoner in his keeping, become a perjurer and a murderer, in order to show his contempt and disregard for the orders of this, the highest and greatest court in the world?
Mr. James J. Lynch and Mr. Robert B. Cooke, with whom Mr. William D. Spears was on the brief, for defendant Gibson:
The statement of the defendant as to what occurred on the night of the lynching is told in an honest, candid manner, and we submit that his statement is entitled to be believed.
The mob came to the jail and surprised him between 8:30 and 9 o’clock — battered down the door leading to upstairs where the- defendant was at the time the mob arrived, and forced him to surrender the keys. • Many members of the mob were armed, and they handled him roughly. He shows that he had nó avenue of escape after the mob arrived, and no chance .to communicate with the outside world. He was an old man 62 years old, and a veteran of the Civil War, and numerous witnesses testify to his. good character.
Mr. Robert B. Cooke and Mr. Moses H. Clift for defendant Galloway:
It is clear from the evidence that the defendant Galloway was not with the crowd or mob that lynched Johnson, and that when we take into consideration the manner, in which this defendant exposed himself and his life, for the protection and to prevent the mobbing of Johnson theretofore, as is shown by the record in this case, it.seems preposterous that the able attorneys for the Government should ask this honorable court to convict or hold this defendant to be in contempt of the orders of this honorable court, on "the testimony of witnesses who impeach themselves so thoroughly and so ef fectively' that no one, much less this honorable,court, could give any credence to their statements. The evidence.establishes, beyond question, the fact that ■ Galloway was not only not with the mob or about the jail, or at the bridge at the time the lynching occurred, but, as shown by the proof, was, at the time the lynching occurred, in the Eagle Club rooms on Market street and knew nothing of the mob until after the lynching occurred.
This honorable court will look into the conduct and the resistance made by this courageous, faithful officer in the defense of the lives of prisoners in his hands. It will take into consideration all the testimony as presented in the, record, and when it does this, we feel confident that this honorabie court will discharge this faithful officer, as well as all the officers, including the sheriff and each of. his deputies, and commend their faithfulness as officers in the discharge of their duty.. •
Mr. G.. W. Chamlee, with whom Mr. J. A. Hood, Mr. W. H. Cummings and Mr. W. F. Chamlée were on the brief, for defendant Ward: ...
The Government hás failed to make out its case against the defendant Ward, who is -entitled to his discharge because the proof fails to show that he had any connection whatever with the lynching, and. also fails to show that he had any knowledge of the fact that this honorable court had acquired jurisdiction of .'the case of Johnson v. Tennessee, and in the absence of such information he could not be guilty of contempt of this honorable court.' To make'the defendant guilty of a contempt it is necessary that he should have in his mind at the time of the commission of the unlawful act, knowledge that this honorable court had taken jurisdiction of,the Johnson case and his. participation either by aiding or abetting in ■ the alleged lynching should be prompted by a spirit of disrespect for its orders. On both of these questions the Government has wholly failed to make out its case.
The evidence shows that at the very hour of the lynching the defendant was at Barnes’ saloon under the influence of strong liquor to such an extent that the witnesses say he was drunk, and probably asleep.
This defendant is an innocent man. The proof against him is in the testimony alone of one Stonecipher who has been successfully impeached and this defendant has proven a satisfaz tory alibi and lack of knowledge of the jurisdiction of this court over the Johnson case.
Mr. O. W. Chamlee, with whom Mr. W. H. Cummings and Mr. W. F. Chamlee were on the brief, for defendant Williams:
There is enough in this record to show beyond any question or controversy that Mr. William’s record for truth and veracity is good and that he is entitled to full faith and credit on his oath in a court of justice.
The Government has failed to show that Mr. Williams did anything in the world in aiding or assisting in the lynching of Ed Johnson. It has failed to show that he had any knowledge that this honorable court had acquired jurisdiction of the case of Johnson V. Tennessee. His answer denies every material allegation made against him in the information filed by the Attorney-General.
Counsel for the Government in the brief for the Government leave the impression that Mr. Ware swears positively that Mr. Williams was the man that shot five bullets into the dead body of Johnson as it lay on the county bridge. This is shown to be clearly erroneous, and a careful reading of Mr. Ware’s testimony does not sustain the contention of counsel for’ the Government. It is most earnestly insisted that’the proof shows .that Mr. Williams was simply present as a spectator as were numbers of other people, but that he took no part in the lynching and is not guilty in any manner or in any sense of the charges made and was in no. way responsible for the death of Ed Johnson. It is, therefore, confidentily urged that the charge against Mr. Williams is not proven and that he should be dismissed.
• Mr. T. Pope Shepherd, with whom Mr. Lewis Shepherd and Mr. Martin A. Fleming were on the brief, for defendants Nolan, Justice, -Padgett and Mayse:
These defendants are charged with being members of the mob that lynched Johnson. They are not interested in the details of the occurrence at the county jail and bridge' bn the night of the lynching except to deny their presence and participation nor are they' interested in the proof showing the history of the Johnson case and the condition of public sentiment with reference thereto. The only question to be considered, so far as these defendants are ■ concerned, is their participation in the lynching.
Each one of the defendants filed an answer to the information denying his respective participation in the lynching and showing where he was on this particular night.
While the defense of - each is separate and distinct, and will be hereinafter treated separately there are some questions that may properly be considered as applying to all alike and will be treated in one discussion.
The Johnson case has been a famous case in and around Chattanooga, Tennessee, from the time the crime was committed, until the present time. ■ From the whole record it will be seen and can properly be inferred that the facts connected v/ith the case have been prominently in the minds of the Chattanooga people at all times. Every step in the case was watched with intense interest by almost every citizen and the subject was, evidently, constantly under discussion during the time from the arrest of Johnson to the night of thfeTynchiiig. So in times of such-great interest it is comparatively an easy matter for a man to remember his actions and wherea bouts on that eventful night in the city of Chattanooga. At any ordinary time, or upon any ordinary night where there is nothing to particularly impress one’s mind at that time or later, it is usually a difficult matter, after a lapse of a few weeks, to fully remember the occurrences of such á time or with certainty to identify such time with particular occurrences. But it is different at times of extraordinary events, whether such events are known at the time or ascertained later. A report on the following morning, of some extraordinary occurrences of interest to every one in a community would have the result of recalling vividly to one’s mind where he was and what he had been doing at such time. It is therefore entirely reasonable that these defendants could give an account of their actions on the night of March 19, 1906, when Johnson was lynched. And it is also entirely reasonable that their several actions could be identified with this particular night.
Nolan denied his presence and participation in the lynching of Johnson, .and showed where he was on that night during the time of the lynching. He was at his place of business over a mile from the county jail up to about 9:30 p. m., that he then went to the saloon of his brother and remained there until a little after 10 p. m. at which time the 'saloon was closed for the night, that he then went to his home near by and there remained until the following morning. This is supported by the testimony and contradicts the testimony to the contrary that Nolan was in the crowd. Some of the Government’s witnesses, testified that he was masked and others .that he was not. He was not fully identified, and the record of the -witnesses who testified that they saw him is bad.
Under a fair construction of all the evidence the Government has failed to show Nolan’s participation in the mob. His alibi is well supported by competent proof and his defense' is sustained by the great weight of-the evidence.
Defendant Justice denies that'he was at the county jail on the night of the lynching, or that he had any connection with or knowledge of the mob or lynching of Johnson'. ■ On that night he was at his home in St. Elmo several miles from the jail,- and a part of the time visiting at a neighbor’s house.
In the brief counsel for the Government first say that it must be remembered that this defendant was a member of the first mób that tried to lynch Johnson.
Defendant was -asked about this. He stated that he was present as a spectator in company with' such men as Judge McReynolds, Attorney-General Whittaker and H. Clay Evans. He was requested to act on a committee to examine the jail. Later defendant made a speech advising the crowd to disperse. Defendant is six feet one inch- high and weighs from 215 to 236 pounds.
' The man identified as Justice was evidently the leader of the mob, but the parties must have been mistaken and one witness says there was a man in the mob who'did resemble Justice.
Defendants Padgett and Mayse answered denying their participation in the lynching. Padgett shows that he was at the Stag Hotel during the evening of the day of the lynching.
■ Mayse shows that he was at home after about 6 o’clock p. m. Neither knew anything of the lynching until the next morning.
The witnesses as to the alibi testified in a- straightforward, intelligent manner. There is nothing so remarkable in their -testimony as to justify the statement in counsel’s brief that they are unworthy of belief. True, they are friends and associates of the defendant, but where could he get proof of his whereabouts except from his associates? Each one gives a reasonable account of his actions that night and a proper reason for remembering the' details. It is not quite fair to charge that witnesses are unworthy of belief, because, perchance, they have testified in favor of the opposite side in a lawsuit. There should be some respectable evidence on which to base such charge before it is justified.
The Government relies on the testimony of one Stonecipher. There is no proof that these defendants were seen at the jail that night. The case is based on certain statements and admission made by them to Stonecipher who says there was a conversation before the lynching in which Pádgett and Mayse were expressing dissatisfaction with ,the course of. the Johnson ■ case. There is nothing in this conversation to show that these parties were intending or making preparations to lynch John- son; and on the next day Stonecipher claims that he heard a conversation between Padgett and another in which Padgett admitted that he and Mayse were participants and Padgett admitted his complicity — all of which both Padgett and Mayse denied — and so the witness Stonecipher stands alone arid Unsupported in his statements, and is contradicted' by b<jth defendants and other testimony.
Padgett does not remember what was said except that he did not state that he was a member of the mob. It is a remarkable proposition that a man would openly in a public-place to a mere acquaintance state that on the night before he had committed murder. Stonecipher’s story is highly unreasonable, and for that reason should be given less, weight than evidence of a reasonable nature.
Then again the nature of the conversation is such that a court cannot afford to call it evidence. At the most it was thoughtless, idle talk or as sometimes expressed as barroom gossip. It cannot be considered as sufficient proof of murder.
■ If all that Stonecipher says is true and it should be. considered as a confession, there is not a case made out for the reason that defendants have shown by an abundance of competent proof that they did not participate in the mob. Under the rule of first trying to make all the witnesses speak the truth the innocence of défendants is consistent with the testimony of every witness.
Witnesses.who-have known Stonecipher since he was a boy and know his reputation both in Chattanooga and in his former. Georgiahome, unhesitatingly say that his reputation is bad and that he is not entitled to “credit óñ his oath.
Giving Sto'necipher’s testimony the most favorable light it does not in any degree prove participation, nor-overcome the alibis set up and relied on by these defendants.
These cases are in effect criminal cases, and in weighing the evidence the rules, in criminal cáses should prevail.
Whether the reasonable, doubt- rule should prevail or not the court should require strong and convincing proof before convicting these defendants and inflicting punishment. The., evidence should be stronger than a mere preponderance as in civil cases. There is something more important than property rights and consequently more strictness required. The freedom and liberty of a citizen should nót be faken except- on the strongest and most convincing "proof.
This agreement appears at length at page 472, post.
The Government’s brief then reviews the testimony at length.
The rule was discharged as to Galloway.
The rule was discharged as to Ward.
The rule was discharged as to Justice.
The information at length and names of all defendants appear at page 439, post.

Opinion:
Mr. Chief Justice Fuller
delivered, the opinion of the court.
This was an information filed by the Attorney-General of the United States against Joseph F. Shipp and twenty-six other defendants, which was dismissed as to eighteen of them and heard as to defendants Shipp, Galloway, Gibson, Nolan, Williams,Justice, Padgett, Mayse and Ward.
The information charged, in substance, that' February 11, 1906, Ed Johnson, a negro, was convicted .of Tape by the criminal court of Hamilton County, Tenn., held in Chattanooga,^ and was sentenced-to death; that on March 3, following, Johnson filed a petition for the writ of habeas corpus in the United States Circuit Court, sitting in Tennessee, alleging that in the trial he had been deprived of constitutional rights; that on March 10 the petition was dismissed and the writ denied,petitioner being'remanded to the sheriff of Hamilton County to be detained in his custody for ten days, in which to enable petitioner to prosecute an appeal, and in default of such appeal to be further proceeded with by the state court under its sentence; that on March 17 Mr. Justice Harlan, of the United States-Supreme Court, allowed an appeal from the decision of the Circuit Court, and on March 19 an order was made by the Supreme Court allowing said appeal; that defendant Shipp, sheriff of Hamilton County, then was at once notified by telegraph of said order, which stayed all proceedings against Johnson, and required Shipp to retain custody of Johnson pending determination of the appeal; that before 6 o'clock in the evening of March 19 a full account of this action of the Supreme Court was published and circulated in the evening papers in the city of Chattanooga; that defendant Shipp was the sheriff of Hamilton County and defendants Matthew Galloway and Jeremiah Gibson, among others, were his deputies; that the deputies as well as the sheriff were fully advised of the action of the Supreme Court, and were informed and had every reason to believe, from current reports and rumors conveyed to them, that an attempt would be made on the evening of the nineteenth or early in the morning -of the twentieth, by a mob composed of a large number of armed men,- to force an entrance into the county jail for the purpose of taking Johnson therefrom and lynching him;.that notwithstanding said, information and said reports the sheriff withdrew from the jail early in the evening of the nineteenth the usual and customary guard, and left in charge thereof only the night jailer — defendant Gibson — and committed other acts -and did other things evincing a disposition on the part of said sheriff to render it less difficult and less dangerous for the mob to prosecute and carry into effect its unlawful design and purpose of lynching Johnson; that about 9 o'clock in the evening of said March 19 defendants and others conspired to break into the jail for the purpose of taking Johnson therefrom and lynching him, with intent to show their .contempt and disregard for the above-mentioned order of this court, and prevent it from hearing the appeal of Johnson; that pursuant to this conspiracy and in order to show their contempt and disregard for said order of this court, between 9 and 12- o'clock ip the evening of said March 19, at Chattanooga, Tenn., defendants, excepting Shipp and Gibson, -assembled with others, broke into the jail, took Johnson out by force, and lynched him; that Gibson was the only officer at the jail when the mob broke in, and that while the mob was in possession of the jail defendant Shipp arrived, but made no effort to prevent the mob from taking Johnson from the jail; that defendants Shipp and Gibson were in sympathy with the mob while pretending to perform their official duty of protecting Johnson, and that they aided and abetted the mob in prosecution and performance of the lynching; that all of these acts were committed by defendants with the intent upon their part to utterly disregard the above-mentioned order of this court and to prevent the court from hearing Johnson's appeal.
The answers *on questions of fact consisted of a general denial and, except in the cases of Shipp, Gibson and Williams, the setting up of an alibi by each defendant: Williams admits that he was at the jail a short time before and at the time Johnson was taken from it by the mob, and that he followed the mob and witnessed the lynching, but denies participating in the acts of the mob.
Certain preliminary questions of law werp raised by defendants and passed upon by the court. 203 U. S. 563. It was held that the complaint sufficiently set forth a contempt of this court; that it was unnecessary for the purposes of this proceeding to determine whether or not the Circuit Court had jurisdiction of the habeas- corpus proceedings or whether this court had jurisdiction to entertain the appeal, as those were questions for this court to determine and for no other tribunal; and that the answers of the defendants, under oath, disavowing intent did not purge them. . '
The case then came on to be heard on the question whether the allegations of the information were made out.
The following is a sufficient resumé of the facts admitted or undisputed:
January 23, 1906, a rape was committed upon a white woman in or near Chattanooga, Hamilton County, Tenn.
At that time and at all times hereinafter mentioned defendant Shipp was the duly elected, qualified and acting sheriff of Hamilton County, Tenn., and as such sheriff had and exercised full charge and control of the county jail located in Chattanooga, and was the legal custodian under the laws of Tennessee of all persons duly committed in said county under the laws of the State to confinement and imprisonment within the jail, and the defendants Matthew Galloway and Jeremiah Gibson were duly appointed, qualified and acting deputy sheriffs under Shipp.
January 25 Shipp and his deputies arrested Ed Johnson, a negro, in or near Chattanooga, charged with the crime.
Late in the afternoon of the samo day Johnson was, by order of the judge of the state criminal court, taken by Sheriff Shipp to Dayton and from there to Nashville, where he was kept until the day of his trial, February 6. Johnson was removed and kept away from Chattanooga during this period because of fear that he would be lynched.
The night .of January 25 a large mob attacked the jail at Chattanooga, where Johnson was supposed to be confined.
Three' of Shipp's deputies were at the jail, and, with the assistance given them by the police, the chairman of the safety committee, and others, prevented' the taking of any prisoners from the jail.
At the suggestion of the deputies the mob appointed a committee to go through the jail and satisfy itself that Johnson was not there.
Even after this committee had reported that the persons whom the mob sought were not in the jail, it was necessary to use force to put the mob out of the jail yard.
The dangerous character of this committee and the mob and their anger at not being able to find Johnson is shown by the testimony of-the prosecuting officer for Hamilton County; the judge of the criminal court of that county; and defendant Galloway.
One other night, about the same time, the officers thought there was to be a mob. The militia was called out twice about that time to protect the jail against a mob which sought to take Johnson's life.
January 26 a special grand jury was convened, and the next day indicted Johnson for the crime above referred to.
' February 6 Johnson was brought to Chattanooga from Nashville and his trial commenced that day in the criminal court of Hamilton 'County. February 9 he was convicted and sentenced to death.
The date of execution was originally fixed as March 13, but on or about March 11 was changed by the governor to March 20. -
No appeal to the Supreme Court' of the State was taken by the lawyers appointed by the court to defend Johnson.
Two daily papers were published in Chattanooga — The Times, a morning paper, and The News, an, evening paper, both having a large circulation. Three competent and leading attorneys had been appointed by the court to defend Johnson, and one of them made a statement, which was published in The Chattanooga Times of February 10, as to the reasons why an appeal was not prosecuted in Johnson's behalf. He depicts the mental strain that he and his associates had been under, and the weight of the burden of the responsibility upon them. He says that when the jury brought in a verdict of guilty "we, as the attorneys, had to settle the question whether the case would be appealed to the Supreme Court." He asked the trial judge to appoint three other lawyers to counsel and advise with them and help to share the responsibility, and three well-known lawyers were designated, who met with the three counsel for the petitioner and considered the matter.
"We discussed the recent mob uprising and the state of unrest in the community. It was the judgment of all present that the life of the defendant,, even if the wrong man, could not be saved; that an appeal would so inflame the public that the jail would be attacked and perhaps other prisoners executed by violence. In the opinion of all of us a case was presented where the defendant, now that he had been convicted by a jury, must die by the judgment of the law, or else, if his case were appealed, he would die by the act of the uprising of the people."
"In view of all the conditions, it was the unanimous vote that the law ought to be allowed to take its course if Judge McReynolds were satisfied with the verdict, and if he were to approve it and pass .judgment of death on it."
He then relates an interview had thereupon with the accused. His right of appeal was explained to him, "that the Supreme Court met in' September next; that an appeal would stay the judgment until that time; that we did not see any reasonable ground to suppose that the Supreme Court would reverse the sentence, and that we feared an appeal would cause mob violence against him." '
•If *1# *lf «1» •!* %lf mtf •X» «X» >77» *X» íJ5 *7» ¿7%
"Without giving all that occurred at the jail, he said to us that he did not want to die by a mob; that he would do as we thought best. He said he would go over to the court house and tell the judge that he did not have anything more to say than that he was not the guilty man.
"I want the people to know that the foregoing facts moved us to allow the law to take its course under the verdict of the jury and the judgment of Judge McReynolds. Six lawyers settled it in this way after the calmest reflection and under the keenest sense of the great responsibility.
"In view of the awfulness of the crime committed, I beg that the sheriff and every peace officer of Chattanooga and Hamilton County will still try to get all possible further light, and if any person anywhere knows anything, whatever tending to show or reflect light on either the guilt or innocence of the defendant, I beg that such person make known all that he may know to us or to Attorney-General Whittaker." •
On the afternoon Johnson was convicted he was secretly, taken from Chattanooga to Knoxville because of fear of mob violence to him.
From the time the crime was committed until after Johnson's trial the people of Chattanooga were greatly excited over the crime and Johnson's alleged connection with it, and there was great apprehension on the part of the people as well as the officers that attempts would be made to lynch Johnson.
It was because of this intense' excitement and the feeling that speedy execution of Johnson might prevent his.being lynched that Johnson was so quickly indicted and tried.
While the trial was in progress extra deputies were sworn in • and an unusual number of guards were kept around the court house and at the jail at night..
Guns to be used in protecting the jail against a mob were purchased.
March 3 Johnson filed a petition for a Writ of habeas corpus in the United States Circuit Court for the Northern Division of. the Eastern District of Tennessee.
March 10, 1906, the petition was denied, the Circuit Court ordering that Johnson be remanded to the custody of the sheriff of Hamilton County, Tenn., to be detained by him for ten days in which to enable petitioner to prosecute an appeal from said order, and in' default of the prosecution of said appeal within that time to be then further proceeded with under the sentence.
This order was máde public through the press.
Johnson was at Knoxville, where he had been kept since his conviction, for hearing upon his petition, and was taken back to Chattanooga, March 11.
Saturday, March 17, application was duly presented by Johnson to Mr. Justice Harlan of the Supreme Court of the United States (Circuit Justice of the Sixth Circuit), at Washington, asking that an appeal be allowed to that court from the order of the Circuit Court, denying Johnson's petition for a writ 'of habeas corpus. This appeal was allowed by Mr. Justice Harlan on the same day. •
March 18, The Chattanooga Times published notice that application for said appeal had been made.
The same day Judge Clark, of the United States Circuit Court, received a telegram from Mr. Justice Harlan, which was communicated to Sheriff Shipp, on the afternoon of that day, that he had allowed appeal to accused in habeas corpus case of Ed Johnson; that the transcript would be filed the next day, and motion also be made by Johnson's counsel for formal allowance of appeal by the Supreme Court.
March 19, The Chattanooga. Times published news of the allowance of the appeal by Mr. Justice Harlan; in which it said,'among other things:
"From these authorities it was learned that the granting of an appeal in a case like this acted to supersede all process in the state courts. No stay is necessary, according to the authorities, and the statute is self-operative, Pending a decision of the appeal there can be no execution by any state authority."
March 19 an order was made by the United States Supreme Court, allowing an appeal to that court from the final order of the Circuit Court denying petition for writ of habeas corpus, and directing that all proceedings against the appellant be stayed, and that the custody of appellant be retained pending the appeal.
About 1 o'clock in the afternoon of said March 19 the following telegram was delivered to a telegraph company for transmittal to the addressee: .
"Washington, March 19, 1906.
"To Sheriff of Hamilton County, Tenn., Chattanooga, Tenn.
"Supreme Court of United States has allowed Ed Johnson appeal from Judge Clark's order, and directed all further pro-, ceedings stayed, and custody of Johnson retained pending appeal here. See Section 766, Revised Statutes of the United States.
"James EL McKenney,
" Clerk Supreme Court, V.' S."
This was received by the telegraph office at Chattanooga about 3.30 on the same afternoon and delivered between 4 and 5 o'clock on that afternoon.
About 2 o'clock on the afternoon of the nineteenth Judge McReynolds told Sheriff Shipp that thé Supreme Court had granted a stay in the Johnson case/ and that thereafter Johnson was a Federal prisoner.
Between 2 and 4 of the afternoon of March 19 the following telegram was received by Judge Clark, and by his secretary communicated to Sheriff Shipp, at the jail, ¿bout 5 o'clock that afternoon, with a copy of the statute therein referred to:
"Washington, D. C., March 19,1906.
" Hon; C. D. Clark, United States Court, Chattanooga, Tenn.
"Court has just allowed appeal in .Johnson's case, and ordered all further proceedings against him delayed and custody retained pending appeal here! It will be well to call attention of state officers immediately to Section 766 of Revised Statutes.
"John M. Hablan."
The statute referred to reads (including the proviso added March 3,1893): , . ;
"Pending the proceedings on appeal in the cases mentioned in the .three preceding sections and until final judgment therein, and after .final judgment of discharge, any proceedings against the person imprisoned or confined or restrained of his liberty, in any State court, or by or under the authority of any State,' for any matter so heard and determined, or in process of being heard and determined, under such writ of habeas corpus, shall be deemed null and. void.
" Provided, That nó such appeal shall be had or allowed after six months from the date of the judgment or order complained of."
Shipp understood that thereupon Johnson was held as a Federal prisoner.
There was published and circulated in Chattanooga, in the evening paper published in that city, on March 19, about 4 o'clock, an account of said action of the Supreme Court, under the headlines, "An Appeal is Allowed. ' Ed Johnson Will Not Hang To-morrow." This reads, in part:
"The gallows in the Hamilton County jail has again been disappointed in the case of Ed Johnson, convicted by the state courts of rape and sentenced to death. The hanging will not take place to-morrow morning, as scheduled."
The news of the action of the court was also posted on. a newspaper bulletin.
After hearing of the stay Shipp says that he made no effort and gave no orders to have deputies or others guard the jail, but left the night jailer, defendant Gibson, there alone.
The county jail at Chattanooga, in which Johnson was confined on the nineteenth, consisted of four stories, two above ground and two below ground. Entrance to the jail was on the third floor, counting from the bottom. In the front part of the building, on this third floor, was an office section. An iron door led4from this section into the jail proper; that is, the protected part of the building, where, the prisoners were kept. Johnson was confined on the top floor. To reach him from outside the jail.it was necessary to go through'the offices;'through the iron door between the offices and the jail proper, up a flight of stairs, through a steel-barred door, right behind which was a circular door consisting of heavy steel bars several inches apart, which revolved so • as to make a passage. Passing through this circular door one came into a corridor around which were cells having iron doors which could be locked. It .was in one of these cells that Johnson was confined.
The jail was located in a populous neighborhood and there were houses around it.
In the evening of the nineteenth a white male prisoner was removed from the upper, floor of the county jail in Chattanooga, leaving only Johnson and a white woman on that floor.
This same man had been removed in the same way at .the timé of the first attempt to lynch Johnson.'
About half-past 8 or 9 that night a number of men entered the jail and went directly and without resistance to the door leading to Johnson's corridor. There is a conflict of evidence as to whether the door leading from the offices to the jail proper was locked during the evening, but if it was locked when the mob came it was easily broken down.'
Gibson was the only officer there at the time, and he was on the top floor with Johnson.
Keys were obtained from him without resistance, but, as the lock on the door leading to the corridor where Johnson's cell was located had been broken by a member of the mob, the keys would not work.
The mob, with sledge and ax, then began to break .the bolts on the corridor door.
About twelve men-were actively engaged in breaking down the door and in all subsequent events of the lynching. Some of these men were masked.
A crowd-of spectators began to gather around the jail soon after the mob reached it, and continued to gather , in and around the jail until Johnson was taken out. This crowd was variously estimated from a few to 150 or more..
It took over an hour to break the bolts on the corridor door.
Two men then went through the circular door and in a few minutes brought Johnson out with his arms tied with a rope.
. When Johnson was thus brought out, the dozen men or so composing the mob grabbed him.
This mob took Johnson from the jail to the county bridge 'over the Tennessee River, which was about six blocks from the jail.
Johnson was taken from the jail a little after lCfio'clock.
From the foregoing it is apparent that there'.was no inter ference or attempted interference of any -consequence with the mob before it left the jail, and there was none after it left.
The crowd which had gathered around the jail followed the mob down to the bridge.
When the bridge was reached the mob took Johnson a little beyond an arc light, put a rope around his neck, threw it over a beam, and swung him up.
At the bridge the mob actively engaged in lynching Johnson were close to him and separated by a space from the crowd of spectators'.
'.The first time Johnson was swung up, the rope broke or slipped and he fell. .He was swung up a second time and shot. After some shots were fired, Johnson again fell, and while lying on the ground was again shot. It was aboüt ten'minutes after the mob had reached the bridge until Johnson was killed:
It is apparent that a dangerous portion of the community was seized with the awful thirst for blood which only killing can quench, and that' considerations of law and order were swept away in the overwhelming flood. The mob was, however, willing at the first attempt to accept prompt administration of the death penalty adjudged at a trial conducted according to judicial, forms, in lieu of execution by lawless violence, but delay by appeal, or writ of error, or habeas corpus was not to be tolerated.
Under then existing statutory provisions appeals might be taken to this court from final decisions of the Circuit Courts in habeas'corpus in cases, among others, where the applicant for the writ is alleged to be restrained of his liberty in violation of the Constitution or of some law or treaty of the United States, and-if the restraint was by any state court, or by or under the authority of any State, further proceedings could not be had against him pending ;fche appeal. Rev. Stat., § 763, 764, 766; Act of March 3,1885, c. 353, 23 Stat. 437.
, In this instance an appeal was granted by this court, and proceedings specifically ordered to be stayed.' The persons who hung and. shot this man were so impatient for his blood that they utterly disregarded the act of Congress as well as the order of this court.
As heretofore stated, the defendants to the information remaining to be dealt with on the facts are Shipp, Galloway, Gibson, Nolan, Williams, Justice, Padgett, Mayse and Ward. Of these, Shipp was the sheriff and Galloway and Gibson two-of his deputies. The .others are charged with active participation in the lynching. It is,contended that the lynching was not expected to occur on the nineteenth, and the evidence of the United States District Judge, and some clergymen and others.was given to the effect that they had no such anticipation. . The event showed that they were wrong, and it is plain the danger might be'very great and yet remain unperceived by the adherents of-order and peace.
It will be remembered that the crime was committed on January 23, and Johnson was arrested January 25. That night a mob attacked the jail in which he was suppose^ to be and ascertained that he was not there. Johnson was kept in Nashville from that day until his trial commenced, February 6. On his conviction, February 9, he was taken away from Chattanooga and, kept away until March 11, the day after his petition for habeas corpus w;as denied. '
It must be admitted that intense feeling against Johnson existed from the time of the. commission of the crime until after his conviction, and that this feeling frequently manifested itself, although Johnson was not in Chattanooga from the time of his arrest until 'his trial began. The intensity of this feeling and' the great apprehension of the officers of mob violence is shown in the testimony of defendants' own witnesses, .describing the precautions and secrecy exercised by them in the way they took Johnson in and out of Chattanooga, as well as by-the fact that théy kept him away from Chattanooga from the day of his arrest until March 11, two days before the time set for his execution, with the exception of the three days he wás there attending his trial. Undoubtedly the public believed, that Johnson would be executed on March 13, until the reprieve to March 20 was granted oh March 11; and after the petition for habeas corpus was denied by the Circuit Court believed that Johnson would then be executed on the twentieth.
Sheriff Shipp testifies that inflammatory reports of the habeas corpus proceedings and efforts to appeal the case to the Supreme Court were sent out by the newspapers on March 11, and because of that he had fear of mob violence to Johnson. The efforts made by Johnson's attorneys to obtain an appeal were kept'before the public by the newspapers.
' March 16 The Chattanooga Times published a statement that a negro attorney had gone to Washington to obtain an appeal from the order denying the petition for habeas corpus. The article said:
"People here are decidedly anxious as to whether Johnson is to suffer deáth for his crime next Monday or escape for an indefinite period by reason of intervention of the court at Washington. More unrest on the subject exists than was anticipated when Johnson was brought back to the county.
"During the recent days of suspense as to his execution the desire for information has been ' feverish, and telephones at localities where information has been thought to be obtainable have been kept busy by inquirers."
In The News, published the evening of March 19, there was an editorial reviewing the local proceedings, which concluded :
"All of this delay is aggravating to the community. The people of Chattanooga believe that Johnson is guilty and that he ought to suffer the penalty of the law as speedily as possible. If by legal technicality the case is prolonged and the culprit finally escapes, there will be no use to plead with a mob here if another such crime is committed. Such delays are largely responsible for mob violence all over the country."
The assertions that mob violence was not expected and that there was no occasion for providing more than the usual guard of one man for the jail in Chattanooga, are quite unreasonable and inconsistent with statements made by Sheriff Shipp and his deputies that they were looking for a mob on the next day. Officers and others were heard-to say that they expected a mob would attempt to lynch'Johnson on the twentieth. There does not seem to be any foundation for the'belief that the mob would be considerate enough to wait until the twentieth. If thé officers expected a mob at all, as they say that they did, they cannot shield themselves behind the statement that they expected it on the twentieth, the day that had been appointed for Johnson to die, and did not expect it the night before. But no orders had been, given and nothing had been done up to' half-past eight o'clock on the night of the nineteenth to protect Johnson, from the mob which was, according to their, present statements, expected the next day.
Testimony was given by a servant -in-Shipp's house that a week before Johnson was lynched Shipp was heard to say that if the execution were stayed Johnson would be mobbed. This was, however, disputed by Shipp and relatives of his who were there at-the time.
On May 28, at Birmingham, Alabama, defendant Shipp himself, in an interview reported and printed the next morning in The Birmingham Age-Herald, said:
'"The first I knew of the mob was through a telephone message I received from The Chattanooga Times office, for they had cut the wires at the county jail immediately upon their arrival. I.dressed as quickly as possible- and went to the jail, and found a crowd of about seventy-five people around it, most of them being in disguisé. I made my way through the crowd into the jail and began remonstrating with them against taking any drastic -steps: They seized me and took me upstairs, locking me up in a bathroom. The members of the mob told me they meant no violence'to me. I argued with them against doing anything at-all, since the law had so far taken its proper course.- I am frank'to say that I did not attempt to hurt any of them, and would not have made such an attempt if I could. In the first place, I could have done no good, as I was overwhelmed by numbers.
'The Supreme Court of the United States was responsible for this lynching. I had given that negro every protection that I could.' For fourteen days I had guarded and protected him myself. The authorities had urged me to use one.or two military companies in doing so, but I told them I would land the negro in jail, which I did, individually.
" 'Many nights before the lynching there had been a sufficient guard around the jail. I had looked for no trouble that night and, on the- contrary, did not look for it until the next day. That night no one was on duty except the jailer, which is the usual guard at our jail, as well as in other counties.
" ' In my opinion the act of the Supreme Court of the United States in not allowing the case to remain in our courts was the most unfortunate thing in the history of Tennessee. I was determined that the case should be put in the hands of the-law, as it was.' The jury that tried the negro Johnson was as good as ever sat in a jury box.
" 'The people of Hamilton County were willing to let the law take its course until it became known that the case would not probably be disposed of for four or five years by the Supreme Court of-the United States. The people would not submit- to this, and I do not wonder at it.
* " 'These proceedings in the United States Supreme Court recently appear to me to be only a matter of politics. I do not wish to appear in the light of defying the Unitéd States court, but I did my duty. I am conscious of it, thoroughly conscious of it, and I am ready for any conditions that may come up.' ", ' •
The testimony of the reporter that Shipp made these statements was corroborated by the evidence of another reporter who interviewed Shipp on the- following day regarding them, .and is not denied by Shipp except in an immaterial particular. From this it appears that defendant Shipp looked for trouble on the twentieth, but, as he says, not that night; that he did not attempt to hurt any of the mob, "and would, not have made such an attempt if I could."
He evidently resented the necessary order of this court as an alien intrusion, and declared that the court was responsible for the lynching. According to him, "the people of Hamilton County were willing to let the law take its course until it became known that the case would not probably be disposed of for four or five years by the Supreme Court of the United States." "But," he added, "the people would not submit to this, and I do not wonder at it." In other words, his view was that because this court, .in the discharge of its duty entered .the order which it did, that therefore the people of Hamilton County would not submit to its mandate, and hence the court became responsible for the mob. He took the view expressed by several members of the mob on the afternoon of the nineteenth a¿d before the lynching, when they said, referring to the Supreme Court, that "they'had no business interfering with our business at all." His reference to the "people " was significant, for he was a candidate for reélection and had been told that his saving the prisoner from the first attempt to mob him .would cost him his place, and he had answered that he wished the mob had got him before he did.
It seems- to us that to say that the sheriff and his deputies did not anticipate that the mob would attempt to lynch Johnson on the night of the nineteenth is to charge them with gross neglect of duty and with an ignorance of conditions in a matter which vitally concerned them all as officers, and is directly contrary to their own testimony. It is absurd to contend that officers of the law who have been through the experiences these defendants had passed through two months prior to the actual lynching did not know that a lynching probably would be attempted on the nineteenth. Under the facts shown, when the sheriff and his deputies assert that they expected a mob on the twentieth, they practically concede the allegation of the information that they were informed, and had every reason to believe that an attempt would be made on the evening of the nineteenth or early on. the morning of the twentieth.
In view of this, Shipp's failure to make the slightest preparation to resist the mob; the absence of all of the deputies, except Gibson, from the jail during the mob's proceedings, occupying a period of some hours in the early evening; the action of Shipp in not resisting the mob and his failure to make any reasonable effort, to save Johnson or identify the members of the mob, justify the inference of á disposition upon his part to render it easy for the mob to lynch Johnson, and to acquiesce in the lynching. After Shipp was informed that a mob was at the jail, and he could not do otherwise than go there, he did not and in fact at no time hindered the mob or caused it to be interfered with, or helped in the slightest degree to protect Johnson. And this in utter disregard of this court's mandate and in defiance of this court's orders.
Let us recapitulate the facts bearing immediately on defendant Shipp. k
About 9 o'clock on the night of the nineteenth the judge before whom Johnson was tried, and the attorney who prosecuted him, communicated with Sheriff Shipp at his house, saying that there were persons around the jail who looked suspicious, and suggesting that the sheriff had better go down to the jail.
At that time a report was generally circulated in the city that a mob was at the jail to lynch Johnson.
Shipp lived only a few blocks from the jail. He reached the jail about nine. ,He was alone. A number of people were in the jail and outside of jt when he arrived. He anticipated a mob was inside.
Without stopping to speak to any of these people he rushed inside of the jail to the foot of the stairs leading to the floor Johnson was on. There he was taken hold of by five or six men and carried upstairs. The men who took hold of him had no firearms.
At first he was put in a bathroom, and then was released arid stood, around near the corridor door, where the mob was at work, with three or four unarmed men around him. He made no effort to get away or use force in opposing the mob. , He did not attempt to use his pistol ór call for help. After the corridor door had been broken in, either Shipp or defendant Gibson, told the mob which cell Johnson was in. When-the mob left the jail with Johnson, Shipp did not follow or make any effort to rescue Johnson or get others to help rescue him. He was not locked up when the mob left the jail, but was left entirely free.
When the crowd following the lynchers was about'two blocks from the jail, Shipp came out of the building alone and unguarded. To a' request made by a man at that time to go and identify members of the mob, Shipp replied that it would be dangerous and foolish. This request was made before the shooting occurred.
A special deputy met Shipp/kt the jail just after Johnson had been taken out and before he was shot. Shipp told him that the mob had Johnson. Shipp was quiet, and made no effort to go after the lynchers, or to reach the police ór militia or others.
When he reached the jail he could have gone about three blocks to the police station and got the police.
No alarm, bell was rung at the court house that night, although it was rung the' night of the attempted lynching January .25, and it drew out a big crowd. No attempt was made by Shipp or others to summon a posse. He sent no one after deputies. He made no effort to send any one for help.
Tt is testified that some time after the mob had left the'jail for the bridge, Shipp sent Galloway and Clark down to the bridge, but he made no effort to go himself.
- There was in the crowd around the jail and at the scene of the lynching a substantial number of law-abiding men.' of good character.
That assistance in suppressing the mob might have been easily obtained if effort had been made is shown by the testimony .of the chairman of the board of safety, who testifies that" at 'the • time of the first lynching in going four or five blocks to the jail he gathered about 16 men to help'put down the mob.
The militia was drilling on the night of the nineteenth between 8 and 10.30 in thé armory, a well-known place, three blocks from the jail. It was not called upon to assist in suppressing the mob, although it had been, called out twice before by the governor, and was bound to respond to another call by him....
The governor had given assurances that any help asked Tor would be given, and we have no doubt he would have responded, for he would have had thq honor of Tennessee in his keeping: -
Numerous witnesses testify that no firearms were displayed by the mob except that one of their n'umber was in the office, of the jail with a Winchester rifle, and one pistol was exhibited to a reporter when thfr-doorw^as' being broken open:
No.deputies put'in an appearance while the jnob was at'the' jail or during the.' lynching, ^except Frank . Jones, who approached the jail with a prisoner, but upon seeing the mob immediately left, with the prisoner, and'excepting Matt Galloway, who was seen in the crowd. '
From the time he reached there, about 6 o'clock, until the mob came, Gibson was the only officer in charge of the jajl,. But there was much evidence .that customarily many deputies were-there nightly, and that several, were present.on-the night, of the 'nineteenth until just before the irruption of the mob. . .
Heavy iron chains were sometimes Used as additional'guards upon circular' doors in the jail, such as that leading to Johnson's corridor. These were locked by the prisoners on the inside. During the-trial of Jqhnspn these chains were used on the circular doors. But none were on.the circular door leading to Johnson's cell on the nineteenth. It also appears that Johnson's céll door was not locked.
Winchester rifles which were kept to defend the jail against mob violence were, at the time the mob attacked the jail on the nineteenth, in a show case in the office. These were taken out of the show case by the mob and unloaded.
Although Shipp was in the midst or near the members of the mob for about an hour when they were in the jail, he did not seek to obtain information so that he could identify any of them, and he testifies that he does not know any member of the mob.
Only one conclusion can' be drawn from these facts, all of which are clearly established by the evidence — Shipp not only made the work of the mob easy, but in effect aided and abetted it.
Gibson is involved in the same condemnation though under less responsibility. We think belief on his part that a mob would attempt to enter the jail and lynch. Johnson on the night of the nineteenth must be presumed.
The day jailer left the jail some time after six o'clock, and transferred the keys to Gibson, the night jailer. Gibson's 15-year old boy was with him, but went to the opera house at 8.30. Gibson was in charge of the jail more than two hours before the arrival of the mob, and he made no effort to summon assistance to repel the attack, although necessarily he must have known that he alone could only offer slight resistance. Mrs. Baker, a white woman, confined on the same floor with Johnson, "testified that Gibson, soon after arriving at the jail, when she had gone doy/n stairs to get a letter written, said to her that a mob was coming, and directed her to go to her room, and when the mob was at the jail came to her door and told her that no one would hurt her. Gibson admits the last statement, but denies the first.
He testifies that when he heard the mob he went into the hospital cell, located on the top floor, and sat down on a lounge, and as soon ,as the mob got upstairs he handed over to them his pistol and the keys, including a key to the door of Johnson's cell; that he did not try to use the pistol, or to resist the mob by force; that from the top floor he could have gone through the kitchen into the yard and back of the jail, but he •made no effort to do so, although it. took the mob some ten minutes after he knew they were there to break through the door between the outer door and'the jail proper; that he just gave up and made no effort at all to resist the mob or rescue Johnson after they had left the jail; that although the men were bold in their work, he failed to recognize any one excepting Nick Nolan.
. Galloway was a deputy sheriff from the time Johnson was 'convicted until after the lynching, and was told bythe.sheriff after the mob had left for the bridge, to-go down there, and did so, but Johnson was then deadff He was criminal court deputy, and served criminal court papers and madé arrests.. But he had'no charge of the jail or keeping of prisoners except when officially so assigned. He had no connection with the j ail or the prisoners at any timé after Johnson was brought from Knoxville on the tenth or eleventh of March. He testified that he had heard nothing while attending.to his duties.that made him think Johnson was in danger; was a member of the Eagle Club, and" was there on evening of the nineteenth, at 7.45, not having heard prior thereto anything about- any impending lynching: His first information of the lynching was after 10 o'clock, when he went to the jail at once. There he met the sheriff, who asked him to go .to the bridge, which he did, but Johnson was dead: We think Galloway must be acquitted of the charges in .the information.
This brings us .to a consideration of the case in respect of the' six defendants, who are charged as members of the mob and participants in its action.
As to Williams and Nolan, there is direct testimony to their participation in the lynching, and we do not-think that the evidence relied on to weaken that conclusion is sufficient to do so.
As to Padgett and Mayse, there is testimony off statements on. their part on the afternoon of the nineteenth and the morning of the twentieth, which, if . believed, demonstrates their guilt. We have carefully examined and analyzed the evidence to impeach the principal witness to these conversations, and also to make out alibis, but we cannot accept it as convincing.
We hold that the case as to Justice and Ward fails on the evidence.
In our opinion it does not admit of question on this record that this lamentable riot was the direct result of opposition to the administration of the law by this court. It was not only in defiance of our mandate, but was understood to be such. The Supreme Court of the United States was called upon to abdicate its functions and decline to enter such orders as the occasion, in its judgment demanded, because of the danger of their defeat by an outbreak of lawless violence. It is plain that what created this mob and led to this lynching was the unwillingless of its members to submit to the delay required for the appeal. The intent to prevent that delay by defeating the hearing of the appeal necessarily foilows from the defendants' acts, and if the life of any one in the custody of the law is at the mercy of a mob the administration of justice becomes a mockery. When this court granted a stay of execution on Johnson's application it became its duty to protect him until his case should be disposed of. And when its mandate issued for his protection was defied, punishment of those guilty of such attempt must be awarded.
The rule will be discharged as to the defendants-Galloway, Justice and Ward, and made absolute as to the other defendants.
Rule discharged as to defendants Galloway, Justice and Ward, and made absolute as to defendants Shipp, Gibson, Williams, Nolan, Padgett and Mayse. Attachments to issue, returnable on 'Tuesday, June l.
Me. Justice Moody did not hear the argument and took no part in the disposition of the case.
For abstracts of answers of defendants, see page 447, post.
For opinion of Mr. Justice Holmes see page 457, post.
For order appointing commissioner to take testimony, etc., see page 471, post. .
For proceedings on the return of the attachment on June 1, see p. 483, post.