Durango semi-weekly herald., 1904-01-25
HALLETT's DECISION.

The decision OF Judge Hallett in the
application of Sherman Parker for
writ of habeas corpus Is of SO much
general interest that We quote from
lis opinion. setting forth the grounds
Upon which he arrived at the conclu-
Sions advanced. Judge Hallett first
reviewed the manner of arrest and
contentious Of the plaintiff. concluding
| IS follows:
In times of turbulence and vio-
lence, when there is a probability of
mob rule in the country. there Is a
discretion on the part OF the authori-
les to hold prisoners without bail. and
| there is reasonable discretion which
may be exercised in all cases In which
criminal charges may be preferred to
hold the prisoner in custody until rea-
| sonable Investigation may be made to
ascertain whether he has committed
IN offense against the law. Whether
his shall be done by the regular au-
thorized officers in the administration
Of criminal law. by the sheriff and by
he district attorney, or by the militia.
Is a matter in the discretion of Off
he executive of the state, is authoriz-
ed and required to enforce the laws
He is required TO preserve the peace
and good order of the community;
md in doing so he finds 1t necessary
20 call out the militia and to use the
power of the state TO protect the com
munity and preserve the public peace
It is proper that he should do SO.
" However that may be. the man
Ter in which the state authorities shall
enforce the law is not for the consider
ition OF the federal government in any
IF Its branches. Neither the execu-
i've. the legislative nor the judicial
power of the feueral government has
declared that when the authorities of
he state are engaged in the execution
If the laws ui the state, in criminal
proceedings. me courts of the United
States ha, no power to review their
proceedings and set them aside upon
nabeas corpus or any other process
which may be invoked.
This rule Is fully declared and ex-
planned in the following cases recently
lecided by the supreme court OF the
Cnited States:
Whitten vs. Tomlinson. 16O u. s.
rep, 23l; Minnesota VS.. Brundage. 1870
U. S. rep, i99: Storu VS.. Massachu-
setts, 1873. U. S. rep. 13S.
THE rule has been so often ex-
planned. so fully developed. by the
supreme court. that they now decline
% write further opinions upon the sub
ject. Such writs as this, when brought
before the supreme court OF the Unit
ed States, are now dismissed without
comment upon the authority of the
cases here recited and dozens of 9TH
er cases which can be cited at any
time from the reports.
The fact is that the government OF
he United States has no concern in
these matters In any of Its branches.
1T is now about ten years since
here was a state of riot and disturb
ince in this came community. On that
occasion a nonresident OF the state
| complained in this court that his pro-
| perty had been destroyed by mobs
assembled In this district, and appeal
| ed TO this court for the protection of
hio property. ne lutu dHeSeu lIldt
| he governor then In Office was a So
cialist and in sympathy with the peo-
pie who were destroying the property.
| He was advised that whatever the To-
cal conditions might be. what kind of
| governor there might be In office, the
| courts of the United States were not
l refuge for him under the circum-
stances: that the criminal laws of the
state were TO be enforced by the state
authorities.
IF within these ten years past
there have been other governors who
had other notions in relation to such
matters, and there Is now governor
who Is disposed to enforce the laws OF
the state, l can only say that the peo-
| Pile of the state are to be congratulate
ed upon that circumstance. We do
not sit here to restrain him In the ex.
ercise OF his authority.
This petition will be dismissed for
want OF Jurisdiction In this court to
| Issue the writ"
|
From Erridav'a nailv.