The Lamar register., 1904-06-15
STATE CAPITAL NOTES
Supreme Court Decision.


the decision of the Supreme Court in
! the Meyer habeas corpus case as fol-
lows:
Most far-reaching and important OF
recent events in America is the decis-
, ion of the Colorado Supreme Court by
two judges-one dissenting-withr re-
gard to the detention by the state mil
itary. of President Meyer of the West
ern Federation of Miners, and the re-
fusal of Governor Peabody, as COM
mander-in chief of the state troops, to
honor a writ of habeas corpus issued
by the supreme tribunal itself.
1 Mr.. Meyer was brought to Denver
! from Telluride, where limited" mar
tial law still exists, and produced in
court, in charge of soldiers. The at
torneys for the governor declared, how
ever, that the prisoner was produced
es a mere courtesy to the court. They
denied that the court had Jurisdiction.
The position of the commanders of the
military was that they would obey no.
orders, except those of the governor,
because state troops, when called un-
der arms were an army, under military
rules, and the absolute rule of any
army is to obey nobody save Its ofi1-
GERS. And the governor is the COM
mander-in-chief Therefore the army
awaited the instructions of the gov
ernor.
The governors position was that he
recognized the proceedings simply as
a proper courtesy, on the part OF one
branch of the government, 10 another,
but that he would not obey mandate
of the court to release the prisoner un-
less he chose to do so. ,.,..1
He had already declined to order the
military to obey a writ OF 1abehs scor-
pus issued by the District Court. with
Jurisdiction in Telluride. TIE com
manders of the military had declined
70 permit the sheriff to serve on them
any civil processes issued by the dis
trict judge, and the mandate of that
court amounted to mere words. The
friends of MIR. Meyer then sought the
inter, ention of the Supreme Court.
The hearing in the Supreme Court
was recognition of the prerogative
OF that tribunal to interpret the law
Nevertheless, the issue was that, in
case of insurrection. the governor pos
eessed certain powers peculiar and ex-
elusive to his Office which were beyond
the reach of the courts and that in
the exercise of those powers, he would
not accept an Interpretation of the
constitution, by the Supreme Court,
denying that he had such exclusive
power.
At this point it is well to remember
that, in the controversies over this is
sue, aired in two district courts-in
one case the mandate of the court be-
Ing obeyed fnally-had been much con-
fused and dubious, until they reached
the supreme judges. A lot of subter-
fuge and quibbling had clouded the
constitution issues with regard to
Limited" martial law.
At the outset of the now nationally
celebrated struggle between the state OF
Colorado and the Western Federation
of Miners, the governor had denied
that there was martial law. But II
became apparent to his legal advisers
that state troops. unless called into
service under proclamation of martial
law, were simply acting as police and
that police power is necessarily review
able by the courts. Thus limited
martial law was instigated, under
which the civil officers performed their
police duties. as usual. but were re-
quired to recognize that the military
commander was supreme. Slowly but
surely the issue was hammered down
TO the point where the Supreme Court
decided yesterday.
1t was apparent, from the first, that
the governor would have to declare.
finally, that a state of war existed in
certain parts of the state where he
had sent the troops, and that Mr..
Meyer was arrested in one of those dis
tricts as a prisoner of war. The gov
ernor never claimed a right to arrest
anybody, as military act, in any
place except the prescribed districts.
To understand this celebrated case
zl.sar hat
there was "a state of war" that is to
say II persons were banded together
with arms to overturn the authority of
the state or defy the law nobody would
question the exercise of the powers of
the chief executive as they have been
exercised. 1t is plain, of course. that
a state, without authority to defend
itself by arms, is not state. The
basic meaning and purpose of govern
ment is armed power to maintain it.
self as such. There can be no other
kind of government.
Therefore the practical point, finally
and singly, was this: Did state OF
war exist?
The Supreme Courts decision was
that II insurrection and rebellion ex-
listed, and that means, practically, a
state of war;" the governor has the
exclusive powers he had asserted and
still asserts. involving the military
power to arrest any citizen in the pro-
soribed district and holding him re-
gardless of the writ of habeas corpus.
And the finale of the finale was the
dictum of the Supreme Court of Colo
RADIO, yesterday, that it is the exclu-
sive prerogative of the chief executive
to determine when and where state
of war exists. or is threatened, the
threat of war being, of course, the
same as actual war.
The court did not naEs ON whether