The advocate and Topeka tribune., 1892-10-26

snOuIu DS 4hmlAl&Ep b4~ CiEVuAb OOAGb va
the United States long ago declared that
"the assembling of bodies Of men, armed
and arrsysd In warlike manner, for pur-
poses only Of private nature, is not
treason, although the judges and peace
officers should bs lnsulted and resisted,
or even great outrages committed to the
persons and property Of our citizens.
The true criterion to determine
whether acts committed are reasonable,
or a less offense (ss riot) Is the quo
amino the people did assemble. The
commission OF any number of felonies,
riots, or other misdemeanorS, cannot alter
their nature 80 as to make them amount
to treason. The intention with which
any acts (as felonles, the destruction Of
houses, and the like, are done, will show
to what class of crime the case belongs" !"
In the standard English authorities all
follow the definitions of levying war laid
down by Foster and by Sir Matthew
Hale. The former lays down that "sll
risings in order to effect innovations Of 3
public and general concern, by an armed
force, are, in construction of law, within
the clause of leVying war. y In
surreCtions for redressing national griev-
ances or for the reformation of real or
imaginary evils Of a public nature, and
in which the insurgents have no special
interest" Says Hale: "f divers persons
levy force of multitude Of men to pull
down particular inclosure, this Ia not a
leVYing of war within this statute, but q
great riot; but il they levy war to pull
down all enclosures, this Is levying war
against the king" And In this country
1t was long ago held by a distinguished
justice Of the supreme court of the United
States, that "a resistance of the execu
tion of law of the United States &C.
companled with any degree Of force, II
for private purpose, Is not treason. To
constitute that offense, the object OF the
resistance must be of q public and gen.
eral character" S. as. Frederjek
Horie, I Paine's U. S. Circuit Court Re
ports, page 265)
The general reader may find in Hal
lam's constitutional History Of England"
all the information he can need to enable
him to fully test the iniquity of the Penn
sylvanls chief Justices attempt; and no
further authorities need be quoted here.
But, suppose we accept the chief justice
Of Pennsylvania himself as our sole au'
thorlty upon the law Of treason, then,
even within his own charge, the Home
stead men were guilty OF no act of trea-
son, unless the battle with the Pinkertons
was such an act. Let US see. Here is
his charge:
After detailing the causes leading up
to the Homestead strike, Judge PsxSon
said:
Inc muIuai IlSnG VI Luo pdLtleD w GOnhd dCt III
regard TO wages and the character OF the en-
pl0yment, whether by the piece or by the day,
whether for ten hours or less, Is az fixed az any
other right which we enjoy under the c0nsLitu
ton aud laws OF this state. 1t Is right which
belongs to every citizen, labOrer or capitalist,
and it Is the plain duty OF the state to protect
them In the enjoyment Of 1t.
Coming to the formation ofthe advisory
committee and the part taken by it In
the strike, he said:
It is alleged that the advisory committee did
more than induce others not to accept employ
ment f. ON the company; that 1t allowed no per-
Sons to enter the mill Of the Carnegie steel
enter the town Of Homestead without It's con-
sent; that IL arranged an organic alton OF mill
fovv ohar0ofar aOnalRfinU M fhPa0 dlviainna