The Elbert County tribune., 1906-12-06
WRIT IS Denied
NO HA6EAs CORPUS FOR MOVER,
HAYWOOD AND PETTIBoNE.
SUPREME COURT DECISION
Opinion by Justice Harlan-Repre-
sentatives of Western Federation
of Miners Must Stay in Idaho
Prison Until They Are Tried-one
Justice Dissents.


of the United States on Monday de-
cided. adversely to the men. the habeas
corpus cases of Meyer. Haywood and
Pettibone, the representatives of the
Western Federation of Miners, who
are now held in prison in Idaho on the
charge of completely in the murder of
former Governor Steunenberg. The
opinion was by Justice Harlan.
The effect of the decision will be to
continue to hold the men in confine-
ment for trial in Idaho.
OF the men involved, Charles II.
Meyer, is president; w. d. Haywood,
secretary-treasurer, and George A. Pet
tibone, member of the Western Fed
Grafton of Miners. They are now in
prison in Canon county. Idaho, under
charge of numbering former Governor
Steunenberg of that state. although it
was not charged that they were pres
ent when the crime was committed.
The cases came to this court on an ap-
peal from decision of the Idaho fed
eral court, refusing to grant writs of
habeas corpus.
The principal point of controversy
was the method by which the Idaho au;
thorities secured Jurisdiction over the
men. All of them are residents of Col
orado and 1t was alleged on behalf OF
Moyer and his associates that they
were kidnapped in pursuance of con
spiracy to which the governor of Colo
RADIO and the Idaho authorities were
parties and hence that jurisdiction
was acquired by fraud
In part Justice Harlan said:
Looking first at what was alleged to
have occurred in Colorado touching the
arrest OF the petitioner and his deporta-
tfon from that state we do not perceive
that anything done there, however
hastily or inconsiderately done, can be
adiudged to be in violation of the con-
stitution or laws OF the United States" "
He added that the governor of that
state had not been under compulsion
to demand proof beyond that contained
in the extradition papers. His failure
to require independent proof OF the fact
that petitioner was, as alleged, fugl-
tive from justice, cannot be regarded
as an infringement Of any right of the
petitioner under the constitution or
laws of the United States. He also
said that even If there was fraud in
The method of removal there had been
no violation of rights under the consti-
tuition.
1T is true" he added, "as contended
by the petitioner, that If he was not a
fugitive from justice within, the mean
ing of the constitution, no warrant for
his arrest could have been legally is
sued by the governor of Colorado. II
is equally true that after the issuing OF
such a warrant before his deportation
from Colorado It was competent for a
court, federal or state, sitting in that
state. tc inquire whether he was in fact
a fugitive from justice, and If found
not to be, to discharge him from the
custody of the Idaho agent and prevent
his deportation from Colorado.
mo obligation was imposed by the
constitution or laws of the United
States upon the agent of Idaho so to
time the arrest of the petitioner and so
to conduct his deportation from Colo
RADIO as to afford him a convenient op-
portunity before some judicial tribunal
sitting in Colorado to test the question
whether he was fugitive from justice
and as such liable, under the act of
Congress, to be conveyed to Idaho for
trial there"
In his dissenting opinion Justice Nc
Kenna said:
"In the case at bar, the states,
through their officers, are the offend
ers They, by an Illegal exertion of
power deprived the accused of CON
stitutional right The distinction is i'm
portant to be observed. But it does
not need emphasizing Kidnapping is a
crime, pure and simple. 1t is difficult
to accomplish; hazardous at every
step All the officers of the law may
be invoked against it. But how is it
when the law becomes the kidnaper?
When the officers of the law, using its
forms and exerting its powers, becomes
abductors? This is not distinction
without a difference. 1t is another
form of the crime of kidnapping distin-
guished only from that committed by
an individual by circumstances.
mo individual could have accomp-
lished what the power of the two states
accomplished. No individual could
have commanded the means and sue
cess; could have made two arrests of
prominent citizens by invading their
homes; could have commanded the re-
sources of jails. armed guards and spe-
cial trains; could have successfully
timed all acts to prevent inquiry and
judicial interference.
THE petitioner, as soon as he could
have done SO, submitted his right to
the consideration of the federal court.
He could not have done so in Colo.
RADIO, he could not have done so on the
trip from Colorado. At the first in.
stant OF time that the state of Idaho
so far released its restraining power to
enable him to consult counsel and ap-
peal to the writ of habeas corpus, he
should have been heard. not dismissed
from court, and the action of the Cir
cult Court in doing SO should be re-
versed."
Opening of Congress.