Mob Law in America. alike the rights of the accused and of the State, a thing demonstrablv impossible under the existing order. The interests of the State and the behests of the social order impera tively demand this. The trial judge and the prosecuting officer should not come from the territory where the offense is said to have been committed; certainly not if they are elective officers. These officers of the court should be named, perhaps, by the governor, with or without the concurrence of the law department of the State. Local sentiment is so strong and so indifferent to the impartial administration of the law, that some unusual and extraordinary plan must be invoked in order to eliminate anything like local or political pressure in the trial of the mob. The venue should be determined by law. Possibly affidavits should be submitted by the prosecution showing the necessity for the change. The right to the change of the place of trial should rest with the State. In no case should the place of trial be in the county where the offence is said to have been committed, nor in an adjoining county. The right to a speedy trial should be con tinued and preserved. But neither party should be forced, unreasonably, to go to trial. These regulations should be supplemented with others looking to less stringent rules of evidence on the part of the State. Whether the doctrine oi reasonable doubt ought to prevail in the trial of the mob, or whether, .-is in civil cases, a preponderance of evidence
527
ought to be sufficient to warrant the jury in rendering a verdict of guilty, is a question which is worthy of careful and thoughtful consideration. The purpose should be to give the accused a fair hearing certainly, but also to make the due administration of jus tice in this extraordinary class of criminal cases reasonably certain, never very doubt ful, as now it seems to be. In every case of lynching, a money judg ment should go to the legal heirs of the victim against the county where the offence was committed. The amount of this judg ment should be fixed by law, say at $5,000, and should be obtained without much ex pensive litigation. It should be paid out of the State Treasury, and the State should be reimbursed by the county by taxation of the latter. Proof of the lynching should be suf ficient to warrant the court in entering judg ment, the time and place of the same, of course, accompanying such proof. These suggested changes would, in the writer's opinion, exert a marked influence in favor of restraining the intending acts of the mob. A few convictions would certainly wipe out this stigma on America's fair name. The plan suggested would make convictions possible, one of the strongest deterrents to the commission of crime. The experiences of the past make some such change as has been herein indicated necessary. The possible dangers of the fu ture make some definite and positive action imperative.
