OCR Text |
Show DISGRACEFUL MALES. On Saturday evening last, a most disgraceful disturbance of the peace took place on Main Street, soon after dusk. At the time the writer was leaving the Tabernacle and crossing the street, when he saw quite a crowd gathering in front of McAllister's harness shop. Stopping to see what the attraction was, he saw four young men engaged in a fierce encounter. They were clenched in pairs and were exerting themselves to the utmost to inflict bodily injury upon each other. Pair number one, nearest the writer, soon broke, when one of them struck the other a blow straight from the shoulder, knocking his antagonist all in a heap, on a very muddy spot. The other pair rolled around a good deal, one of them, evidently too drunk to make a good fight. We stopped but a few minutes and then left the spot, but were surprised to learn, half a hour later, that no arrests had been made, the belligerents having simply been warned to behave themselves. Consequently within an hour, the fight was again renewed in the street south of Z. C. M. I., and this time one of the parties engaged in it, was arrested. He was immediately liberated, however, on his brother's giving security for his appearance Monday morning. He was then fined on three different counts, viz: being drunk and disorderly, disturbing the peace, and fighting $15 in all. He was very drunk during the fight, but is said to be a pretty steady fellow ordinarily. We do not wish to say anything that shall cast unjust reflections upon any person, particularly upon any of our peace officers, all of whom we highly respect, personally, but a few queries have had their rise in this affair. After the first disgraceful fight why were not the parties placed where they could not engage in another so soon. Is it likely that these four young men, at least two of whom were drunk, would engage in a rough and tumble fight without more than one of them being to blame? If not, why was but one arrested? The one who was arrested and fined was a railroad man, the rest, we believe, were "city boys." There is already a feeling among the railroad boys that they are not fairly treated by the "city boys," and peace officers, and this incident will go to give color to what they say, unless it is explained. We ourselves saw enough of the fight to convince us that more than one of the belligerents deserved arrest and punishment, and the arrest of but one of them, and he is a railroad man, has until explained, the color of partiality. The object of these remarks is simply to advocate equal justice to all. If a "railroader" gets drunk and breaks the law, punish him, and if a "city boy" commits a similar offense, award to him a similar punishment. |