Jasper County Democrat, Volume 12, Number 15, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 26 May 1909 — DISAGREES WITH JUSTICE FULLER [ARTICLE+ILLUSTRATION]

DISAGREES WITH JUSTICE FULLER

fails to See Any Contempt In Sheriffs Conduct. IOASE FIRST OF ITS KIND Officer Sixty-Three Years Old and Others Ordered Before August Tribunal to Be Punished For Falling to Prevent Lynching of Negro—Court, In Statement Made by Man Cited, Held to Be Responsible For Death of Prisoner Who Attacked Woman. Washington, May 25.—For the first time in so serious a case, the supreme court of the United States will, on next Tuesday, undertake to mete out for the crime of contempt Of the court itself, and the importance of the occasion will be enhanced by the number of defendants. The proceeding will take place In connection with the cases of Sheriff

Shipp and Deputy Sheriff Gibson of Hamilton county, Tennessee, and of four other residents of that county. These men have been declared guilty iof combining in 1905 in a conspiracy |,o lynch a negro named Johnson, who had been sentenced to death for attacking a woman, and in whose cast* the supreme court had granted time for an appeal. On the night following the announcement of the court’s action Johnson was lynched. First Case of Its Kind. This practically is the first time thet the highest court in the United States has ever undertaken to assert its dig nity or to resent acts or words reflecting upon it. In these cases of Sheriff Shipp and Deputy Gibson the court in effect de dares that there may be contempt In a failure of editors of the law to prevent a crime. Chief Justice Fuller quoted from an interview given out by Shipp some days after the lynching in which Shipp eald that he “did not attempt to hurt any of the mob,” and in which h? charged the supreme court with the responsibility for the lynching because of its interference in the case. “He evidently resented the order of this court," says Fuller, “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 lav; take Its course until It became known that the case would probably not 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.'

Disagrees With the Chief Justice. In a dissenting opinion by Justice Peck ham, which was acquiesced in by Justices White and McKenna, there was a complete review of the case and In this opinion the conclusion arrived at was quite contrary to that of a majority of the court. Justice Peckh&iu said: The sheriff .was sixty-three years Of age at tills time, and, on account of his physical condition, unable in any event to have offered any great resistance. There were at least ten or fifteen of the men around him who were armed and the sequel proved that many more in the crowd were also armed. 'That he did not kill, or attempt to kill, any member of the mob, is no evidence whatever of complicity with (these miscreants, and certainly no evidence of contempt pf this court U

seems to me most extraordinary that even on official under these circumstances can be found guilty of a contempt because in fact he did not resist to the death.” Want Mrs. Daniel J. Bulfy Punished. New York, May 25.—Application to adjudge in contempt of court Mrs. Daniel J. Sully, wife of the former cotton operator, has been made. She is alleged to have failed to appear for examination in connection with a suit for S4OO brought against her by a Fifth avenue Jeweler. ~

CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER.