The advocate and Topeka tribune., 1893-09-13

II
rescued the DunsmoFe house chief clerk;
that very evening the Douglass house re-
Cruited force Of 632 men, many Of them
armed, and placed them in charge Of per-
SON styled commander" who had, also,
his ''sdjutant," and divided them into COM
panles under company commanders. No
appeal was made to the sheriff, nor the
chief Of metropolitan police, nor TO any
peace officer to assist the sergeant at arms
in executing the order of the house; but this
large military force was Immediately raised
and organized under the houses own
authority. That this body of men was an
extra legal body admits Of no serious con-
trOVersy. We live under written coustitu-
tiOn, and from that instrument, expressly
or by necessary implication, or from stat
utes enacted under It's authority, must every
department. Of the state government derive
its powers. No statute, no express provision
Of the constitution, gives the house authority
to raise or WELD body of men for any pur-
pose. Nc such power can be implied, for it
has been vested by the constitution itself
in the governor Rs supreme executive"
and commander in chief" Of the militia.
But, If il could be implied, the implication
must rest upon either the established usage
of legislative assemblies, or upon the ne
cessitY Of such power TO enable the house
to discharge It's constitutional functions.
The supposition that the raising of suoh
force is according to parliamentary usage,
is negatived by the authorities, (Oushin's
Law and Practice of Legislative Assem-
blies, sections 608, 1862 and 1868; British
Statutes at Large, volume 8, page 7, Pream-
BILE to act 13 Charles II, chapter 6,); and the
doctrine that such power is to be implied
from necessity is distinctly denied by the
decision Of the English priVy council in
Doyle vs.. FalOoner, law reports, first privy
council, 1923, approved by the supreme court
Of the United States in Kilbourne vs..
Thompson, 10S .. s., pages 1873 and 1S9.
This body Of men was, then, an extra legal
body, and was, therefore, the moment it
rendezVouBed, an unlawful and riotous
assembly. l Russell on Crimes, pages 267
and 1858; State vs.. Brooks, l Hill, So. Car,
1862, State vs.. Connolly, Rists 10 o., State
Vs. Huntley, Ired. @. 418; Sir John Knights
case; 3 Modern Rep, III; Regina vs.. Vim
cent, Darlington and Payne, 70; 4 Black
stone, 149, First Bishop Crime Law, Eighth
edition, chapter 2S. And this riotous as
sembly having been raised by the house, the
house became part Of an entire riotous as
sembly which embraced the armed body
thus raised; so that every member of the
house was guilty Of riot, and subject to pun
ishment as a rioter. This was the legal
state Of things on the evening Of Febru-
ary IA.
Rumors that this riotous body meant TO
invade representative hall made it the duty
Of the executive council to employ force
of guards to protect the states property.
(Gen. Stat. 1889, SEQ. 6637.) The Douglass
house resisted and forCibly oVercame the
guards thus appointed, and beat down the
doors Of the hall on the morning Of Febru'
airy 10. Having entered the hall, the Doug
lass house was followed by large number
Of the members of its military force, and
by their Commander" and the doors were
barriOaded, and these armed men stationed
there by the house TO resist with bloodshed
provisional militia" should il be sent by
the governor to eject the riotous occupants |
Of the hall. The provisional militia" was
a lawful militia force raised by the COVER
nor under section 3779 of the General Stat
utes Of 1889, and placed under the command
Of Capt. II. G. Lindsay. The conduct of the |
house had converted the riotous body into |