New-York tribune., 1906-12-04
MINERS LOSE APPEAL.
ETTRADITION LAWFUL.
Supreme Court U'M Not Interfere
an lSteunenberg Murder Cases

HD - DLSUHSUOCTS " Uf (CCF 0OSCS.
Washington. Dec S-The Supreme Court de-
cided to-day the habeas corpus cases OF Meyer,
Haywood and Pettibone, the representatives Of
the Western Federation of Miners VINO are held
in prison in Idaho on the charge Of completely
in the murder Of Ex-Governor Steunenberg, ad-
versely TO the men. The opinion was by Justice
Harlan. The effect of the decision viii be that
the men will continue to be held in confinement
for trial in Idaho
Charles H Meyer is president, W. d Haywood
secretary-t and George A Pettibone
member of the Western Federation of Miners,
They are now in prison in Canyon City Ida,
under g charge Of numbering eX-GoVernor
Steunenberg of that state. although II was not
charged that they were present when the crime
was committed The cases came to the Supreme
Court on an appeal from a decision of the Idaho
federal court refusing to grant writs of habeas
corpus.
The principal point of controversy was the
method by which the Idaho authorities secured
Jurisdiction over the men. All of them resi-
dents of Colorado, and II alleged on their
behalf that they were kidnapped. in pursuance
of a conspiracy TO which the Governor of Colo
rado and the Idaho authorities We're parties, and
hence that Jurisdiction acquired by fraud
Justice Harlan said that in the habeas corpus
proceedings in the United States courts the
method OF the extradition Of the defendants was
not material. The merits of the cases were not
involved as that phase was not prosecuted
The only question there involved was the right
of the state courts TO proceed with the cases, OF
which there could be no doubt.
Justice McKenna delivered dissenting opin-
ion. holding that Meyer. Haywood and Pettibone
had right to invoke the aid OF the federal
courts 70 correct improper methods in securing
s,asv. hot ltd or,f1iV1p
under the law is no more justified than when
performed outside the law. where every effort Of
authority is used 10 prevent and punish ii.
Announcing his decision that the United States
Circuit Court had jurisdiction in the habeas cor
pUs proceedings, Justice Harlan said
Looking first at what was alleged 10 have oc-
CURED in Colorado touching the arrest of the
petitioner and his deportation from that state,
We DO not perceive that anything done there,
however hastily incOusiderately done, can be
adjudged TO be in violation of the Constitution
or laws Of the United States
He added that the Governor Of that state had
not been under compulsion TO demand proof be-
yond that contained in the extradtion papers,
and said.
His failure 70 require Independent proof Of
the fact that petitioner was, as alleged. a fugf-
tive from justice cannot be regarded as an in
frngement of any right Of the petitioner under
the Constitution or laws of the United States.
He also said that even # there was fraud in
the method OF removal. there had been no vio-
lation Of rights under the Constitution He con-
tinued:
II is true as cOntended by the petitioner that
If he was not a fugitive from Justice within
the r,Aanirer of tba Constitu+or no u,ay-a r+ for
his arrest could have been legally Issued by the
Governor OF Colorado. II is equally true that.
even after the issuing Of such a warrant before
his deportation from Colorado. il was competent
for court federal or state. sitting in that state
10 inquire whether he W., in fact. fugitive
from justice, and. If found not TO be. 20 dis
charge him from the custody of the Idaho agent
and prevent his deportation from Colorado.
No obligation was imposed by the Constitution
or laws of the United States upon the agent OF
Idaho 10 time the arrest of the petitioner and
so conduct his deportation from Colorado 70
afford him a convenient opportunity before
some judicial tribunal sitting I'm Colorado. TO
test the question whether he was fugitive
from justice and as such liable, under the act OF
Congress TO he conveyed to Idaho for trial
there
sitting in Idaho, could rightfully discharge the
petitioner upon allegation and proof simply that
he did not commit the crime Of murder charged
against him His guilt or Innocence Of that
charge is within the exclusive Jurisdiction OF
the Idaho state court. The question in the court
below was not whether the accused was guilty.
or innocent. but whether the Idaho court could
properly be prevented from proceeding in the
trial of that issue. upon proof being made in the
Circuit Court Of the United States. sitting in
that state that the petitioner was not a fugitive
from justice, and not liable in virtue Of the
Constitution ana laws Of the United States. 10
arrest in Colorado under the warrant Of its
Governor and carried into Idaho.
After reviewing the antecedent decisions. ne
announced that the principles set forth in them
require an afirmance of the judgment OF the
Circuit Court" He said. in conclusion.
ANY investigation as To the motives which in
duced action by the Governors of Idaho and
colorado would be improper well irrela
Int TO the real question To be determined.
r must be couclusively presumed that those
.fficers proceeded throughout this AFFAIR with
va evil nurpose. and with no other motive than
m enforce the law.