lence are aliens or non-resident citizens. In such cases, the responsibility of the Federal government for individual protection seems to be established. On the other hand, the state is supreme within its own domain, and has full and complete control over its citizens. No writ nor process of law can issue, and no action can be begun in a Federal court against a citizen of a state unless the plaintiff is a resident of another state, or unless the alleged offence was committed against the United States. Personal wrongs are to be corrected and personal rights defended by that state within whose jurisdiction cause of action lies. If that state will not act on the complaint of its citizens or is powerless to enforce its decrees, the individual sufferer has no relief, so long as public sentiment is against him."
Thomas continues along this line of his argument for another paragraph or so, into which I do not care to follow him, although I concur in much that he says, and, while I am, of course, morally opposed to the system of lynching, I predict that it will be practiced in the " black belt " as long as the blacks remain in this country, and continue to assault and murder our people, and this whether they are responsible for their natures and ignorance or not, and all the law to the contrary, in so far as the mob is concerned.
Touching upon this point, Thomas continues: "We are concerned chiefly with the cause which instigates sectional lawlessness, and our message to Southern civilization is to exterminate by law its lawless white element; at the same time, to exterminate, at all hazards and at any cost, the savage despoilers of maiden virtue or wifely honor, and do it so thoroughly that
