The Glenwood post., 1906-10-13
MOYER-HAYW
HAeEAS CoRPUsARGUED BEFORE
v. S. SUPREME COURT.
ALLEGATION OF KIDNAPPING
Western Federation Officials Seek for
Freedom-charge That Officials of
Two States conspired to Railroad
Them Out of Colorado.

TWO States Conspired to Railroad
Them Out of Colorado.
Washington.-The United States Su-
preme Court heard final arguments
Wednesday in the appeal from the ha-
beas corpus proceedings held in the
Idaho Supreme Court in the case of
Charles II. Meyer, William D. Hay
wood and George A. Pettibone of the
Western Federation of Miners, now in
Jail at Boise, Idaho. under Indictment
for the murder of Ex-Governor
Steunenberg.
The arguments were not fully con
cluded. Edmond F. Richardson of Den
yer opened for the labor leaders, and
j. II. Hawley of Boise represented the
state of Idaho.
Clarence S. Darrow. the well-known
Chicago attorney, will make the clos
ing arguments for the accused.
Richardson's argument for the ap-
pellants consumed an hour and half.
He declared that the three men We're
kidnapped from Colorado as the result
of a conspiracy TO which Governor
Gooding of Idaho, Governor Mcdonald
of Colorado and Prosecuting Attorney
Van Duyn We're parties. and that their
transportation to Idaho. where they
were afterward indicted, was wholly
unlawful.
His argument was based on the as
sumption that Prosecutor Van Duyn,
in order to get requisition for
Meyer, Haywood and Pettibone, had
sworn that the three were in the
state of Idaho on the date of the mur-
der of Frank Steunenberg." Mr. Rich
ardson asserted that Van Duyn knew
when he made this affidavit that the
three men were all in Colorado at the
time the murder Was committed. The
attorney contended that the Idaho
courts having secured jurisdiction
through a conspiracy, the men were
entitled to release from custody. He
characterized the action of the law
officers of Idaho and Colorado as an
archy.
j. II. Hawley of Boise consumed less
than an hour in stating the case of the
state of Idaho. He would not admit
that there had been a conspiracy and
declared that the whole case of the ap-
pellants rested on false assumption
that there had been a conspiracy be-
tween the governors and prosecuting
officers Of the two .ates. Mr.. Hawley
claimed that Prosecutor Van Duyn's
affidavit was in proper form because
person charged with crime in Idaho
must be charged as a principal. Under
the law, therefore. It became neces-
sary for Van Duyn to say in his affi-
davit that the three appellants were
| personally present in Idaho the day
Governor Steunenberg was killed. He
said that there was nothing to justify
the charge that the proceedings were
based on the perjury of the prosecutor,
Van Duyn, but even admitting that
such was the case, the Supreme Court
could not take action on the appeal.
Replying to the charge of Attorney
Richardson that the three labor lead
ers, after being arrested, were spirited
away on special train and not al
| lowed to see attorneys nor friends, Mr..
Hawley said there had been no unnec-
essary haste in transferring them to
Idaho, as the train did not leave until
/ the day after their arrest. At this
point Chief Justice Fuller made a sif-
niticant interruption, expressing the
opinion that there was no reason why
the officers after securing their pris-
oners should not have left at once for
Idaho.
Mr.. Hawley, continuing his address,
insisted that the court had no right to
inquire into the subject of how the de
PENDANTS reached Idaho. If the procure.
ment of the prisoners had been irregu-
lar the officers could be called to- ac-
count or defendants could sue for dam
ages but it was a matter entirely apar;
from the guilt or innocence of the ac-
cused.
Concluding, Mr.. Hawley said that
the appellants were seeking to delay
the case. They had refused three
months ago, he SAID, to withdraw the
appeals and accept a speedy trial
Both attorneys were frequently in
terrupted during the remarks by ques-
tions from various members of the
court. The character of these ques-
tions, with the exception of several
questions asked by Mr.. Justice Nc
kenna, did not appear to be especially
favorable to the defendant appellants