Court Opinion

ID: 9418153
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 22:10:50.460105+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:21:56.379768
License: Public Domain

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,1 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 *404States-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 *405and 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.1
Certain preliminary questions of law werp raised by defendants and passed upon by the court. 203 U. S. 563.2 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.3
*406The 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 *407testimony 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 *408that 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» >7* *7» *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 *409defendant, 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 *410of 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 *411appeal 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 *412six 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.
*413In 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*414ference 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 *415that 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, *416until 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 *417of 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. *418In 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 *419not 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 *420of 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 *421work, 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 *422blocks 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 *423the 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 *424•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 *425also 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.1
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.