The Stock Rustler, the Murder, and the Vigilante Threat in Colfax
Ed Hill's preliminary hearing for killing Langford Summers turns on liquor and provocation—while a bitter town whispers that a light verdict will bring vigilante justice.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
Colfax, April 14.—[Special.]—The preliminary examination of Ed Hill, charged with murdering Langford Summers at Garfield last November, was begun here today. Thomas C. Griffiths conducts the defence, and Prosecutor Fickel is assisted by J. W. Reid, of Lewiston, Idaho. The line of defence made by Hill is that he was under the influence of liquor at the time of the killing, and that Summers gave provocation for the assault when he remonstrated with Hill and his companions, the Payne and McCowan boys, about their rowdyism. The fight will be long and fierce, and should Hill get off on a light verdict, it is likely that he would forfeit his life at the hands of vigilantes, as the feeling against him is intensely bitter. Hill is defiant and carries the same braggadocio manner that characterized him when he rode the range as a stock rustler and was an all-around tough.
“Should Hill get off on a light verdict, it is likely that he would forfeit his life at the hands of vigilantes, as the feeling against him is intensely bitter.”
More than a century later, Washington courts still wrestle with the line between self-defense, intoxication and community outrage. The article's casual talk of vigilante justice is a reminder that frontier due process was often fragile—and that public anger around a killing could become a threat of its own.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.