The author of a review calls the narrator, Art Croft, a "moral coward." Considering he listened to the words of Davies, heard of the memories that plague both Gil and Sparks, and is given much to consider by Gerald Tetley, does the description fit? Should Art Croft have done more to try to prevent the lynching of the suspects? Is his involvement made worse because he was privy to so much information? Is he the most guilty of everyone?

A coward, by dictionary definition, is someone who is not brave and who eagerly wishes to avoid danger or difficulty. If we add the word "moral" into the equation, we realize that there are ethical questions called into play.
Art Croft is a first-person narrator, so we are allowed more insight into his mind than we are with the other characters. He is an unreliable and very subjective narrator; he is insecure and scared to appear as an outsider.
Croft and his companion, Gil Carter, know almost everyone from Bridger's Wells, but they still perceive themselves as outsiders. They are therefore often preoccupied with the importance of behaving "properly." They are very sensitive to what others think of them.
For this reason, one of their main aims is to fit in with the community. Furthermore, as they are newcomers, they wish to avoid becoming suspects for the cattle rustling incident which has just occurred. Therefore, they join others in an attempt to find the culprits and restore justice through lynching.
Croft is approached by Davies. Davies represents the group's conscience and is often the voice of reason. He states that it is best to avoid illegal action and that one should follow the law. He is rational and makes a compelling argument. Croft is in fact swayed by Davies, especially since he was ambivalent in the first place. However, even though Croft is not completely convinced of the legality of the manhunt, his desire to fit in is stronger.
He argues with himself but finally comes to the conclusion that arguments must be judged according to the situation. It is not enough to be ethical if these arguments remain "indoors" and never measure up to reality. In this way, he is able to convince himself that the manhunt, while unethical, may be the only way to deal with the true situation. He chooses to believe this over Davies's argument because it is the most "comfortable" choice, the one that allows him to avoid dealing with difficult and uncomfortable situations. It is easier to simply go along with a group of people rather than be the only one opposed to everyone else. In this sense, Art Croft is indeed a moral coward; he chooses the easy way out as opposed to the one that he recognizes as morally correct (even though he never admits it). He needs to be trusted and accepted by the group, and this affects his moral compass and judgement.
Art Croft also knows about the memories of lynching that plague Sparks and Gil. Sparks's brother was lynched, and this greatly affected Sparks, whereas Gil was present at the lynching of three men and has been opposed to lynching since. Gil also talks about the dangers of remaining a passive spectator to injustice. Gil, however, also remains passive.
Despite knowing how the memories of lynching affect these characters, Croft makes excuses and superficially shakes these considerations off.
Gerald Tetley is another character who makes a compelling case against illegal punishment. Croft and Gerald Tetley have a long and significant conversation, which takes up many pages in the book. Gerald talks about how men lose their humanity when they hunt, justify their actions with hypothetical reasons, and use excuses such as love and compassion to avoid turning one against the other. Gerald also brings attention to the fact that society tends to weed out its best members, as well as the weak ones, in a crazy quest for power. Croft is very disturbed by Gerald's argument and becomes increasingly nervous. Still, he does not take a definitive stand. Once again, he convinces himself that Gerald is just a boy and that his theories stem from his young age and inexperience.
Despite his reservations and all the external influences on his conscience, Croft does not do anything. He never takes a stand; he has a gun but never uses it. However, being completely passive makes Art Croft just as guilty as the others. Croft succumbs to the pressure of the mob and is unable to resist.
We can consider Art Croft a moral coward whose personal concerns with behaving appropriately and being accepted outweigh his concerns for acting according to the ideals of justice and behaving ethically. Art Croft is a disappointing character. We know that he was not completely convinced about the hanging, and we know that, had he not been a coward, he could have fought for the lives of the three men who were unjustly hanged. He is not the most guilty character in the book, because there are too many guilty characters to count, and they are all just as guilty. More than one member of the mob has reservations about the illegal punishment, but most stand by and passively accept the actions of the mob. While it is true that he has a lot of information, he is completely incapable of processing this information and using it to take a stand. He makes excuses in order to convince himself of what he wants or needs to believe.
Ultimately, we have very little sympathy for Croft. We learn at the end of the novel that he does not really feel guilty and is even embarrassed by Davies's guilt and shame. Croft believes that all the men in the mob are equally guilty and therefore, in the end, no one is guilty.
Croft is weak and spineless. He is so unable to let go of his insecurities that he simply cannot do more to stop the lynching of the three men. We expect more from him. We expect courage and moral integrity, but these are qualities that Croft does not have. He is not intelligent enough to use the information he has acquired. For this reason, he should not be considered more guilty than others, but he does evoke a sense of repulsion and disgust for his weakness. He is certainly a moral coward.