, 1891-12-18
The Military We're in the Ser
vice Of the State.
And The State Must Pay the Troops
for Quelling the Riots i'm King
County.--The Judges
DncIrsnna

|
tions of a valuable coal mine al Gilman.
The manager Of the mine appealed to
Colonel Haines for troops. The colonel
declined to act without orders, but for
warded to Governor Ferry telegram
stating the condition of affairs, which,
with thereby have already been printed in
| THE TRIBUNE. On the evening of June 27
a pitched battle occurred between the con
tending factions at franklin and before day
break Companies B and D were
at the scene. On June Doth companies D
and e were sent to Gilman to quell an out
break there, and remained on duty until
| July 16. At Franklin, Newcastle, Black
| Diamond and Gilman, the rioters contin-'
ued to move in armed bodies, when the
governor wired Colonel Haines to dlsarm
all unauthorized armed bodies where there
was danger of riot, or breach Of the
peace. In order to be on the safe side, and
not deeming his force sufficient to carry
out such suggestions, Colonel Haines
wired the governor asking if his order al
\ lowed him to use, if necessary for the pres
eryation of the peace, any companies of
this regiment other than those now iii the
! field. To this the governor replied: "You
can use all of the First regiment for tile
| purpose indicated in my dispatch this
morning, if necessary" The supreme
court says, IN summing up the case;
IN THE STATES SERVICE.
| We find therefore, that these troops were
engaged in the states business and were
therefore, in the states service. Their po-
sition is we'll illustrated by the case of Ella
VS.. Smith, 5th Gray 1871 Tn many in.
stances in the history of the country the
troops Of the United States have been sent
to the assistance Of the states, as notably
| in 1877, when at many points railroad
trains carrying the mails were threatened
with stoppage by strikers. But, although
the relation Of the states to the United
States has no analogy to that of counties to
the states, it has never been thought OF
that the pay or subsistence of the regular
army while thus engaged was a charge
against the several states; the reasons be-
ing two, first, that the United States had a
direct interest in the forwarding Of the
mails, and, secondly, that it is bound, by
the constitution, to guarantee each OF the
states against domestic violence, when ap-
/ pealed to,
THOSE TELEGRAMs.
In the argument Of this case stress was
laid by both sides upon critical examina-
tionof the several kilograms which passed
between the governor and the colonel of
the First regiment. But iii the view we
take of the matter, it matters little whether
sidered as a request for advice, or the COM
munication of a fact, viz. That one riot
had occurred and more were Threatened; or
whether that of the governor, of date June
25th, was an order depended upon by a call
by an officer named i'll section 500 for an
armed force; Ample grounds existed, as
shown by the petition, for the governors
order Of that date, and whether they did or
did not his excellency was the sole Judge
Of the situation, and his decision was
not to be questioned either by the troops,
or the courts, or in any other way than
that pointed outin the heconstitution. Martin.
VS.. Mott, 70 Wheaton, 30. Vanderheyden
VS., Young, III Johns, 100.
KNOCKING OUT FERRY's ARGUMENT.
Before leaving the case we desire to no
tice an argument which was used to sustain
| the position that the troops were not in the
service Of the state, viz: That they were
not called out in accordance with the act
OF 1880, defining the gOuernor's duties. In
response to that, in the first place, it can
not NATTER so far as their right to pay is
concerned, whether there was a reasonable
ground for calling them out or whether
the call was formally correct or not. The
| first last and only duty Of the soldier is to
| obey the command of his superior officer.
when called upon to march with his COM
rades, and if he does not obey he is pun
ished under the statute.
lne suPlenie e4eoncve power " ene
seaue 70 ses.eu ~ ene soxetpl anu py tne
tels ~ W ilnsi4 aaSlGie ~ vile colsIit.-
to execute the laws of the state. Art. sec.
.. In this particular the language Of our
constitution is IN substance the same as
that of the Act of 1895 comforting the same
pt "a S'lg ~ paes,ueilo sseb " sne oniIeu
llq IN z w siie, ~ Iiias
- places ~ nis - liaiiu? tne soie power ol
uuBlliS atlu ueoelii,ihiiiS' ron ING lacos W
: ~? PossSesion, mneii 'no e1iSency mas
n!Asell Mliion wv. iIlaAes n upon
laii W ofii ioiVii tne i''iiiVaiy power 81 ene
Sv'0V' ,-..,,o,,,a ..
liiH ~ rsiAnoN = rop -
The Act OF 1880 begins with these
words: In addition to those prescribed BY
power, and may perform the duties pre-
scrIbed IN this and the following sections" }"
but, as has been seen, the Twelfth author
lty therein assumed to be conferred already
| existed, being fully covered by the phrase
ito execute the laws Of the state in the
militia article. The course Of action there
prescribed cannot be binding upon the gov
ernor In any case where In his Judgment
the danger OF riot and bloodshed is 50 inn
eminent that time will not serve for the de-
ssyS,,,, ~ - n @'vsoeSsoiiv
-
fAoMfI ACTION NhoEssAkY.
In these cases prevention is to be de-
sired, not cure and It is to be hoped that