 |
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
||||
|
||||
| GOV. RITCHIE AND THB PRESIDENCY 13-- Criticism has] bean directed at Governor Albert C, Ritchie for the lynching of the Negro tVilHaKS here on December 4th and in some quarters it has been insinuated, if not.openly expressed, that the occurrence will injure the governor's cha;. ees for the Democratic presidential nomination. Among* thour-.tfcl people such statements should >¦ accepted as another form of idle political gessip &at has not the slightest foundation in fact. Traced to its source it will b_e found to originate from the governor's critics who seek to capitalize upon the lynching as a step in retarding the progress of popular acceptance of the Maryland executive as a presidential possibility. It is to the credit of the Maryland governor that hi- -.dversaries can find no other issues to bee against him. Governor Ritchie cop id not have stopped the lynching, for the crime struck with such suddenness that even local authorities—with an unquestioned record for efficiency—were found unprepared, and so quietly that only a very small proportion of the city's populace knew what had happened until the whole affair was over. Under the Maryland Constitution adopted in IS7G, he went to the extremity of his gubernatorial authority when he instructed the Attorney-General to co-operate with the county State's Attorney h; an investigation to establish the identity of the mob leaders. As for bringing the offenders to trail—in the event they are identified —and as lor. pi'ceuri.vj convictions, that rests exckib»ely v. ah the jurors in this :ounty. No state or federal authority" can intervene. ¦! No one thought of impeaching the president of the United States when a shot from a Coast Guard vessel killed a member of the crew of the rum runner "I'm Alone". The president's responsibility in that case is even more firmly fixed than is Governor Ritchie's in connection with, the lynching. The positions of the Governor of Maryland'and the Governor of New York are somewhat analogous. The former's connection with the lynching case is as far removed as the latter's responsibility for the overt acts charged against certain courts and public officials in Now York city by the legislative investigating committee of that Etate. Considering the facts as they actual-y exist, what, we might ask, does the lynching episode have to do with Governor Ritchie's ability to act upon such vital matters of national import as: a moratorium of inter-govern-iental debts, cancellation of war reparations, whether a high or moder-tely low tariff is for the best interests of American industry and the working man, government or private ownership of public utilities, farm relief, unempoiyment relief, world disarmament, settlemeitt of the controversy over rational prohibition, balancing of the •" deral budget, conservation of national resources, and the thousand and one other major problems before the American peopie today. Compared with these vital matters tho lynching, even though there had existed a fixed responsibility upon the governor, is certainly an infintestimal issue. The lynching here was nothing more or less than a local revolt against Communistic influences that had mads its appearance for several weeks previously. Ins ired by such teachings, the mob's victim, by his own confession, killed lis employer and planned to murder ' four or five other people." We hare yet to hear in this city or in ether Eastern Shore counties mob violence condoned as a method of supplanting established courts of justice. We have heard many responsible citizens state they would give their individual fortunes i,p the clocks could be turned back to Decfctnbei i, aid the lives of the murdered man and the mob's victim restored. Yet our citizens are unwilling to see innocent persons—whether it be Governor Ritchie or any one of the hundreds of spectators—criticized or punished for an affai to which they |