The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-07-08
THE WRIT REFUSED.
The Miners Injunction Suit De-
: cided Against Them.
JUDGE LIcHTENBERG's OPINION.
n Need Of the writ-sullivan and His
GUARDS Censured- Salmon Bay
Farm Case Revived.

0rekou improvement company g ai.p "n.cn
~ brought to obtain writ OF mandatory in.
,rnctiou 70 disarm the Sullivan guards at
franklin. came up before Judge Lichtenberg
vssferday and the Injunction was refused.
Almost the entire day was occupied in the argu-
.u6at b. James Hamilton Lewis, on behalf Of
~ miners, and by A. F. Burlsigh for the Ore
- Improvement Company.
n Burleigh submitted afidavits from T. B.
corey. superintendent OF the mines, and c. ].
ezrtsb general manager of the Oregon Improve
accompany to the effect that the guards had
eleedy surrendered their arms These affi-
am, - appears from Judge Lichtenberg's
~udnion had great weight in determining his
1ecrion. The opinion was as follows:
A. has been said by our brother Burleigh. who
1nday represents the defendant Oregon Improve
uent Company, grave public emergency exists
-stares us In the face. The condition of affairs,
= be also stated, are disgrace TO the state and
~ laws As we have said during the progress
a the argument, aside from the matter that Is
now before us for decision, we have judicial
knowledge OF this state OF afiairs, because we,
b conjunction with our brother judges, have
directed the assembling of the grand jury
70 make an investigation. Because OF
this grave emergency, because OF the
eminent jurists of the supreme court OF the
United States and others; we propose TO speak
plainly, because our duty to the state as citi-
zen and our oath of Office as judge requires it.
opinion Of the supreme court Of the United
states il very applicable: "when peace pre-
walls and the authority of the government is
undisputed, there is no difficulty in preserving
the safeguards OF liberty If the ordinary
modes Of trial arc never neglected, and no
one wishes II otherwise, but If society
d disturbed by civil commotion, II the passions
Of men sre aroused and the restraints of law
weakened il not disregsrded, the safeguards
need and should receive the watchful care OF
those intrusted with the guardianship OF the
constitution and laws In no other way can we
transmit to posterity unimpaired the blessings
81 liberty, consecrated by the sacrifices of the
Revolution" To this quotation we may add the
sacrifices OF the thousands and thousands in the
ysars OF 1876 to uphold and defend these
principles. IL may not be entirely pertinent to.
the question before US for decision, but knowing
that great public emergency exists and the
duty Of those called upon to admins
;sr the laws to speak plainly, we quote
anairh Says no less eminent authority than
Chancellor Kent: Martial law Ia quite dis
hnct from military law. Martial law exists
Dscessity. 1t derives no authority from the
evil law, nor assistance from the civil tribunals,
fofn overrules, suspends and replaces both"
And from another eminent jurist: "In the state
Of siege, the place is put under martial law, or
under the authority of the military power,
where the civil law 10 suspended for the time
being, or at least 10 made subordinate to the
military M, Justice Davis: speaking OF mar,
arise from threatened invasion. The neces-
Iity must be actual and present, the invasion
real, such as effectually closes the courts and de-
poses the civil administration, and 1t 10 impos
'ible to administer criminal justice according to
law. Then, on the theater of active military
operations, where war really prevails,
There or necessity ,ss to furnish
thrown, to preserve the safety of the army and
society, and as no power is left but the military,
e IL allowed TO govern by martial rule until the
creates the rule, so it limits its duration; for il
his government 10 continued after the courts
IRE re-instated, 1t 10 gross usurpation of power
Martial rule can never exist where the courts
are open and in the proper and unobstructed ex-
srcise OF their Jurisdiction" Up to this present
moment the courts, both inferior and superior,
Of this county and this great commonwealth,
have been open and unobstructed, their pro-
cess enforced. That being so, martial law cannot
prevail, cannot be declared. For III martial law
would be established on any different principle,
y Mr.. Justice Davis further says, sit would de-
troy every guaranty of the constitution and
render the military independent of
Ind superior to the civil power, the attempt to
10 which by the king of Great Britain was
deemed by our fathers such an offense that they
assigned 1t TO the world as one OF the causes
which impeiled them to declare their independ-
snce. Civil liberty and this kind of martial
law cannot endure together; the antagonism is
and in the conflict one or the
other must perish. Down TO the present day
martial law, as claimed in the case OF the Earl of
Lancaster, has been condemned by all respect
mental laws OF the land, and snbversivs of the
liberty OF the subject" To which we add, Is
also condemned by every respectable American
jurist
We have briefly referred to martial law so
that there can be no misunderstanding of the
position of eminent jurists on the question of
what constitutes martial law, and also that
there can be no misunderstanding that martial
law does not exist within the bounds either of
this county or this state today. Every person,
artificial or natural, within the district that Ia
new the scene of the trouble should disarm. ex-
w.t. the executive officer of this court, and the
peace officer of this county, the sher-
~ and such men, either mill
tay OF civilian, that he has called
person, as respecter of the law and lover of the
government, the country and the flag under
which he earns and receives his daily bread, be
II either as laborer or by his coupons or divi-
dsnds, or employed by such, should immedi-
ately disarm and yield to the majesty OF the law.
The law protects the property aud the lives of
all persons The law is the protector of every
person, natural as well Is artificial. No man has
The right, except in extreme, isolated cases
cef.defense for fnstance-to take the law into
his own hands.
Counsel for the defendant Oregon Improve
ment Company submits that that artificial per-
son stands today within the law as any other
citizen. We are glad TO know il. There is no
credit due to any person standing within the
W.
and the question is. did these defendants stand
within the law the day this complaint was filed?
That Is the pertinent inquiry. The contention
OF defendant, to an extent, is right that is to
sAy, the oregon improvement Company had the
right TO employ colored laborers, citizens of the
United States-the legal right to employ
any labor they saw At. These plaintiffs
and other men. who were ,aooring Tor that COM
longer under that company If they so desired
They had the right to refuse to WORK, but it was
wrong-and there we agree with eounsel-when
these plaintiffs, or any other person, in addition
70 refusing to work, attempted to prevent anv
other citizen, by force, from working There
We draw the dividing line. The company hsv-
ing the right to employ whom II sees fit, with
proper restrictions, the men having the right
70 refuse to work, aud il being wrong
for them TO threaten by force 20 prevent
others from working, IL was the plain duty,
either to prevent others from working or de,
sfoying the property of the company, or TO
hinder them, II was the plain duty OF the com.
pany to seek the protection OF the proper officers
OF the law. There is no excuse, nor is il lawful
even without our constitutional provision, for
the company in protecting their rights to EN-.
ploy an armed body OF men from another state.
or from our own state. Ii is the duty of the
sn9ef the laws of this state, that protection was
anu ample. Ii was to prevent any
Eeuon, either artificial or natural. from employ
Ink atmed men, that article l, declaration OF
tishts, section -, of the constitution was
ssuopsea. Prior TO the adoption of the constitu-
son ~ was .ne law that no armed force could DO
~ easepting that which the lawful author
bodies of men had been emnloved. and The neo.
Pc soismnty, AZ the adoption OF the constitu-
nSn, oeSiSfea IN uEmisiskeable words that
~ shus Tue nght OF the individual citizen
state should not be denied. because that ia
natural right, nothing in that natural rirht can
construed as authorizing indlviduals or cor
a nfasr
armed body OF men. IL 10 not nacs.ss-yrso.s ~, 81
legislature 70 pass any law on the subject The
people OF this state by their constitn,;c, 80
ensnsea thsi principle The wrong Was in the