Roanoke, Va. It is frequently claimed that lynchings occur only in
sparsely settled districts, and, in fact, it is a favorite plea of
governors and reverend apologists to couple two arrant falsehoods, stating
that lynchings occur only because of assaults upon white women, and that
these assaults occur and the lynchings follow in thinly inhabited
districts where the power of the law is entirely inadequate to meet the
emergency. This Roanoke case is a double refutation, for it not only
disproves the alleged charge that the Negro assaulted a white woman, as
was telegraphed all over the country at the time, but it also shows
conclusively that even in one of the largest cities of the old state of
Virginia, one of the original thirteen colonies, which prides itself of
being the mother of presidents, it was possible for a lynching to occur in
broad daylight under circumstances of revolting savagery.

When the news first came from Roanoke of the contemplated lynching, it was
stated that a big burly Negro had assaulted a white woman, that he had
been apprehended and that the citizens were determined to summarily
dispose of his case. Mayor Trout was a man who believed in maintaining the
majesty of the law, and who at once gave notice that no lynching would be
permitted in Roanoke, and that the Negro, whose name was Smith, being in
the custody of the law, should be dealt with according to law; but the mob
did not pay any attention to the brave words of the mayor. It evidently
thought that it was only another case of swagger, such as frequently
characterizes lynching episodes. Mayor Trout, finding immense crowds
gathering about the city, and fearing an attempt to lynch Smith, called
out the militia and stationed them at the jail.

It was known that the woman refused to accuse Smith of assaulting her, and
that his offense consisted in quarreling with her about the change of
money in a transaction in which he bought something from her market booth.