A number of men were killed off before Wilson Callahan’s death by assassination put an end to it.
The Jett-Little feud next stained the history of Breathitt County. It was brought to a close about fifteen years ago, and after the principal participants therein had all been killed off. As bad as conditions had been prior to 1878, they grew decidedly worse in that year, when Judge William Randall, the presiding judge of the Criminal Court of the district, was compelled to desert the bench in the midst of a court session to seek safety in flight. The county was in a state of revolution brought about by the assassination of Judge John Burnett, then the county judge. This crime was laid at the door of the Gambles and Littles. The uprising of the factions was precipitated by Judge Randall’s declaration that his court would see to it that the criminals were punished. Judge Randall never returned to Breathitt County during his term of office.
During the latter part of the eighties another reign of terror was initiated, and continued until the close of the decade.
Lest we might be accused of exaggeration and sensationalism, we insert here the acrimonious, bitter correspondence between Governor Buckner and Judge Lilly, the presiding judge of the Criminal Court of the district which included Breathitt.
The letters are a matter of public record, and are instructive, interesting, and will no doubt materially aid the reader to understand the nature of frequent clashes between state, district and county authorities.
Judge Lilly to Governor Buckner.
Frankfort, Ky., Dec. 5, 1888.
To his Excellency, the Governor of Kentucky.
Dear Sir:—From a full investigation and inquiry into the condition of the affairs in Breathitt County, I am fully satisfied that the civil authorities cannot hold a circuit court in that county and enforce the law without the aid of the State Guard. That the people are divided to such an extent that a sheriff’s posse will not be sufficient. Several murders have been committed in the county since the last term, and the offenders are not yet indicted, and cannot be, unless the witnesses can be protected. Charges are made against a brother of the sheriff, and the son-in-law of the jailer, and the witnesses cannot be induced to go before the grand jury unless they have assurance of protection. There is a number of felony cases in the court, which I think will be ready for trial....
Governor Buckner’s Reply.
Hon. H. C. Lilly, Judge 19th Judicial District,
Irvine, Kentucky.Dear Sir:—I have fully considered your letter of the fifth inst. in reference to the condition of affairs in Breathitt County in which communication you say that you are “fully satisfied that the civil authorities cannot hold a circuit court in that county and enforce the law without the aid of the State Guard; that the people are divided to such extent that a sheriff’s posse will not be sufficient; several murders have been committed in the county since the last term, and the offenders are not yet indicted, and cannot be, unless the witnesses can be protected; charges are made against a brother of the sheriff, and the son-in-law of the jailer, and the witnesses cannot be induced to go before the grand jury unless they have assurance of protection.” And you further say: “I, as judge of the Breathitt Circuit Court, call upon you to furnish fifty of the State Guard, properly officered and equipped, to aid the civil authorities in holding said court and in enforcing the law.”
It is needless for me to say that in a republic the employment of the military arm in enforcing the law is of rare necessity, and the occasion for its use should not be of doubtful propriety. The law invests the civil authorities with ample powers to enforce the observance of law, and expects those officers to exert their authority with reasonable diligence. When this is done there is seldom an occasion when the military arm can be employed without detriment to the public interests and without bringing the civil authorities into discredit. When a people are taught that they are not themselves the most important factor in the conservation of order in society, and that they must depend upon the exertion of extraneous forces to preserve order among themselves, they have lost their title to self-government, and are fit subjects to a military despotism. I do not believe that any portion of this Commonwealth has reached that degree of political degradation.
As far as Breathitt County is concerned, while there have been acts of individual lawlessness, I do not find in your statement, or from any other source, an evidence of any organized opposition to the civil authorities. On the contrary, I am convinced that a reasonable exertion of their legitimate power would cause the masses of the people to rally to their support more effectually than could be done in the presence of the military force. The latter, whatever their numbers, could not influence, and ought not to influence, the character of the testimony of a single witness before the grand jury, but their presence would be a confession of weakness on the part of the civil authorities before they had made any attempt to discharge their duties, and to this extent would lessen respect for their authority, and render the subsequent discharge of their duties more difficult. A healthy public sentiment, and not the presence of an armed force, is the best support of government; and the powers conferred upon a circuit judge, both as a judge, and as a conservator of the public peace, are so unlimited that a firm and judicious discharge of his duties will almost invariably mould public sentiment in support of his judicial actions.
Under all the circumstances, I do not believe that the presence of troops in Breathitt County is necessary to maintain the laws. With every purpose to support the judicial tribunals in the effective discharge of their duties, I feel constrained to decline the request which you make to order a detachment of the State Guard to Breathitt County. But if my own presence will be of any service to you, I will take pleasure in accompanying you to the Breathitt Circuit Court if you conclude, on reconsideration, to hold it.
In your letter, November 13th, you say: “I will not attempt to hold courts at Letcher, Knott or Breathitt unless you send guards along.” This is a matter on which the Executive can take no action. It is for the legislative department of the government to judge of the facts which will justify an official in thus abdicating the duties imposed upon him by law.
But on this subject I trust you will permit me, without obtruding on your consideration any views of my own, to invite your attention to an act passed by the General Assembly at its last session, and approved March 9th, 1888. Amongst other things this act provides that “if, at any term of circuit court, the presiding judge thereof shall be absent ... it shall be lawful for any other circuit judge of this Commonwealth to attend and hold such term of court, and while so engaged he shall have and exercise all the powers and authority of the regular judge of such court.”
I am informed that under authority of this act, some circuit judges have already interchanged courts, and if there are any reasons why you prefer not to hold the court in Breathitt, I have no doubt that many of the circuit judges would be willing to interchange with you. I happen to know that Honorable Lucius P. Little is willing to hold the Breathitt Circuit Court for you, if you will hold the McLean Circuit Court for him....
Your obedient servant,
S. B. Buckner.
Judge Lilly to Governor Buckner.
Irvine, Ky., February 4th, 1889.
Governor S. B. Buckner.
Dear Sir:—Your letter dated 14th December, and postmarked on the 18th, was received by me on the night of the 25th, at Jackson, Breathitt County. On the third page you proposed to accompany me to Jackson in the following words: “But if my own presence will be of any service to you, I will take pleasure in accompanying you to Breathitt court, if you conclude, on reconsideration, to hold it.” You were advised that the Breathitt court would begin on the 17th, and I suppose your Adjutant-General had informed you that I had decided to go and hold court if I could do so. I told him on the morning of the eighth that I would go to Breathitt court. You must have believed that I would leave Irvine for Jackson as early as the morning of the 14th, and before you wrote your letter. Why did you make such a proposition to me at the time you did? I fear you will have a little trouble in making people believe that you made the offer in good faith.
On page 4 of your letter you say “I happen to know that Hon. Lucius P. Little is willing to hold the Breathitt Circuit Court for you, if you will hold the McLean Circuit Court for him.” I thank Judge Little for his kind offer, and believe he made it in good faith, but why did you withhold the information from me until it was too late for me to confer with him. He lives in the western part of the State. You must have known that I had no time to make any arrangements with him. You must have known that the offer was futile, and that it could not be carried into effect. Can you make the public believe that you were acting in good faith?
In speaking of the application made to you on the 5th of December, you failed to make any reference to the papers filed with it. Why did you conceal from the public the fact that a majority of the attorneys who practice at the Breathitt Circuit Court ... and divers other prominent men, had requested you to send a guard, and gave it as their opinion that the court could not be held without a guard? I am at a loss to know why you sought to throw the whole responsibility upon me.
That the public may know something about the condition of Breathitt County at the time, it is only necessary to say that between the first day of August and the fifth day of December, 1888, the following men were killed, to wit: Lewis Taulbee, James Shockey, David Barnett, and Isaac Combs, “Shooting Ike;” and the following men were shot and wounded, viz: Crain Flinchem, John Smith, Jeff Smith, Marion Lawson, Curtis Spicer, Luther Abner, John Campbill, Jack Barnett, Pearl Strong, Wm. Frances, and Breck Miller. There were also a large number of other felonies committed in the county, and all this, in addition to the old docket, which shows a large number of felony cases. Knowing their system of combining their strength to help one another, to prevent any one being punished by the law, I submit to you if it would not have been better if you had sent a guard there to encourage the good citizens to attend court. I held court there three weeks, and there was no outbreak, that is true, and it is also true that we got no verdicts in important cases. We tried four murder cases and had hung juries in each case. Except those required to be in attendance, the good citizens of the county were not there. Why were they absent? I think it was because they thought it unsafe to be there. For the same reason nearly all the attorneys who practice at that bar failed to attend the court.
Theories look well on paper, but when you come to put them in practice they often fail to work well. What do murderers and outlaws care for theories. I hope you will not think I put it too strong when I say that your course has given comfort, if not aid, to those who are charged with crime. They feel that they are able to prevent the civil authorities from enforcing the law, and, in view of your letter, they feel that no help will be given the civil officers, and hence they will do as they please.
Judge W. H. Randall, Judge Robert Riddle, Judge Cole and Judge Jackson and other judges have thought it advisable to have a guard. Judge Finley failed to attend his courts in Letcher, Perry and Knott for several terms before his term of office expired. They, like myself, had better opportunities of knowing the real status of affairs in their counties than people who live far away, and do not understand the people.
It has been published in the newspapers of the State that a certain judge of the State held his courts in Breathitt County and had no trouble. That judge, previous to his election, had been employed as counsel for nearly every one charged with high crime in that county, and, as a consequence, did not have to try them. On the contrary, he was doing all he could to prevent their conviction and to prevent the laws being enforced upon them. He is yet the employed counsel of six persons charged with murder and other high crimes in that court. Of course, he had no trouble. Who can say, whether, if he had tried to bring them to justice, he would have gotten along so easily. As the papers pretty generally throughout the State have published your letter to me, I hope they will do me the favor to publish this, my answer.
Hoping you will find it easy to answer the interrogations propounded to you in this letter, I remain,
Yours respectfully,
H. C. Lilly.
Governor Buckner’s Reply.
Commonwealth of Kentucky.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE.
Feb. 8, 1889.
Hon. H. C. Lilly,
Judge Nineteenth Judicial District,
Irvine, Kentucky.
Dear Sir:—Your letter of the 4th inst. reached me yesterday. You seemed to impute want of good faith on my part in offering to attend you to the Breathitt Circuit Court. This charge on your part is based on the erroneous and gratuitous assumption that the Adjutant-General had doubtless informed me that it was your intention to hold the Breathitt Circuit Court on the regular day. The Adjutant-General informs me to-day that he did not himself know that it was your determination to hold the court, and that the remark you made to him on the subject left him in the belief that you had not reached a determination as to what you would do in the premises. You wrote me that you would not hold court in Knott or Letcher, and in your conversation with me gave me no ground to believe that you had concluded to hold the court in Breathitt.
My conclusion was therefore logical and necessary that you would not hold the court.
Your assumption that I knew that you would hold it is therefore entirely erroneous, and the decision you reach in consequence of this assumption is fallacious.
You ask me a number of questions in your letter, but as you proceed to make replies to suit yourself, and to reach conclusions favorable to your own views, you spare me the necessity of giving them any response. I limit myself to stating what alone is relevant to this question, that having concluded that there was no necessity of sending troops at great expense to the State, I offered to accompany you so that, if my views should have proved erroneous, I would have been on the ground to have called to your aid such assistance as may have been needed.
As the session of court was to continue during three weeks, and as you could have taken your seat on the bench at any time during the term, there was ample time, after writing my letter, for you to have reconsidered your determination, if you had been at Irvine, where I supposed you were, and to which place I addressed my letter to you, and to have gone afterwards to Breathitt long before the term of court should have closed. So far from knowing that it was your purpose to hold court, I had not the slightest idea that you would do so, until I learned after the adjournment of the court that you had held it. I am gratified that you did so, for it was a demonstration that troops were not necessary for your protection.
In like manner there would have been time for you to have made an interchange with Judge Little, by telegraphic correspondence, if such had been your desire.
You seem to charge that I have aided and abetted criminal classes by declining to place troops at your disposal in Breathitt County, and attribute to their absence the non-conviction of criminals. If their absence produced such a result in Breathitt County, their presence at your court in Perry County should have produced, according to your logic, a large number of convictions. But I am advised that the result was the same in both counties. We must, therefore, look for some other reason than the presence or absence of the military to account for such uniformity of results. I believe myself that the court is and ought to be, an important factor in the administration of justice, and that the presence or absence of the military should have no weight in its decisions, and ought not to influence its actions.
You ask why I throw “the whole responsibility” of making an application for troops upon you? It was because you were the judge who made the application; who demanded protection, and averred you would not hold court unless I sent guards along. There was no one else with whom the responsibility could be divided, and as you must have acted from your convictions of duty, I do not see why you should seek to avoid the responsibility, or desire me to place it where it does not belong.
I have no criticisms to make in reference to other judges who have asked for troops, or in reference to Judge Finley, who, you say, failed to attend certain courts.
These were occurrences under former administrations, and were doubtless considered by the Executives of the time in the light of facts, which I do not pretend to know. Much less will I offer my comment upon the grave charges you insinuate against another judicial officer in connection with the Breathitt court. But I cannot refrain from expressing regret at what seems to be the manifestation of feeling on your part, which does not impress me as strictly judicial, but, notwithstanding this, I beg you to rest assured of my desire to support your authority in every way that the Executive can do, consistent with the public welfare. I have no objection to your giving the fullest publicity to your letter.
Respectfully yours,
S. B. Buckner.