The Goodland republic. [volume] (Goodland, Kan.) 1891-1907, 1892-11-25
HOMESTEAD AFFAIRS.
Colonel BrOadhead Argues the Law
Concerning the Cases.
He says the Chief Justice acted In the
Heat OF Passion.
Declares that PaxsOn was Under the
influence Of Party Prejudice.

If the newspaper report of tn
charge of Chief Justice Paxson to tn
grand jury in the cases of the Home
stead advisory committee is correct
then, to speak mildly, it will be re
ceived With astonishment by the pro
fession and by the country. 1 shall
not comment upon the bad taste anC
questionable propriety of his decent
from the bench of the supreme courl
of the state to take part in the man
agement of these cases, the trial OF
which properly belongs to another
tribunal, nor of the greater indecorum
OF basing his charge to the jury upon
facts derived from mere rumor; for the
statement that the men had been ne.
ceiVing exceptionally high wages could
not legitimately come before him Og
any other tribunal under a charge OF
treason, nor would it matter under
such charge that were the moving
causes which led to the acts constitute
ing the crime of treason, unless it
were for the purpose of showing what
was the intent with which the acts
were committed. And certainly the
fact that they were receiving except
ionallY high wages can have nothing
to do with the intent with which those
acts were committed. Such declar-
atiOns seem rather to disclose the ami
mus which induces the Chief Justice
to come down from his high position
and take part in these proceedings
that he might have an opportunity to
lecture the Homestead advisory COM
mittee about other matters than those
in which the Commonwealth of Penn
sylVania was concerned.
What have to say was in regard to
his legal definition of the crime of
treason. In my Judgement, if all the
facts stated by him are true beyond
question, there is not the shadow Of a
ground upon which to base the charge
of treason.
Treason against the United States,
according to the constitution, consists
only in "levying war against the
United States or adhering to their
enemies, giving them aid and COM
fort"
In Pennsylvania the language Of the
law is: "If any person owning alleg-
lance to the Commonwealth of Penn
sylvania shall levy war against the
same or adhere to the enemies thereof,
giving them aid and comfort, etc, he
shall be adiudged guilty of treason. y"
1t is claimed that this is a case of
levying war against the state of Penn
sylvania, and of course the same ques-
tions arise in this case as would arise
if the offense charged were against the
United States. The question, then, is:
What is the legal import of the words
"levying war;" and what facts are
necessary to sustain such a charged
In other words what is treasonp For
it is not pretended that this is a case
of ''adhering to the enemies thereof,
giving them aid and comfort"
Does treason consist in merely re-
sisting the law, or resisting an officer
of the law, with an armed force if you
please, and with an intent to violate
the law or obStruct an officer of the
law in the discharge Of his dutiesp
Certainly not Such ofenses are
distinctly provided for. They are
minor Ofenses compared with the
treason. To constitute a levying of
war there must be the embodying Of a
military force armed and arrayed in a
warlike manner, for the purpose of
forciblY snbverting the government or
dismembe1ng the state, or destroying
the legislative functions Of govern
ment.
Shay's rebellion in 1886 was q clear
case of levying war; an armed force
was organized and an attempt made to
subvert the government of Massachus-
etts. The Dorr rebellion was SIM
liar attempt by an armed force to sub
vert the existing government of Rhode
Island and establish a new government
in its stead. This was clear case of
ieVylng war, and was held to be
treason by the supreme court of the
United States
The Chief Justice states that the au-
thority Of the Sheriff had been defed |