The Goodland republic. [volume] (Goodland, Kan.) 1891-1907, 1906-12-07
HIGH COURT DENIES RELIEF.
Habeas Corpus VIII Not Issue to Pet
tfbOne and Fellow Prisoners.

tfbOne and Fellow Prisoners.
washington, Dec. 5.-The supreme
court OF the United States today de-
cfded. adversely to the men. the ha-
beas corpus cases OF Meyer, Hay
wood and PettibOne, the representa-
tives 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
Stunenberg- The opinion was by JUS
tee Harlan
The efect Of the decision viii be to
continue to hold the men in cOn6ne-
ment for trial in Idaho
OF the men involved, Charles H
Meyer, is president; W D Haywood
acknowledgements and George A
Pettfbone a member Of the Western
Federation Of Miners. They are now
in prison in Canon county, Idaho, IN
der a charge Of numbering former
Governor Stunenberg Of that state, al
though it was not charged that they
were present when the crime was
committed The cases came to this
court on an appeal from 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 are residents OF
Colorado and il was alleged on behalf
Of Meyer and his associates that they
were kidnapped in pursuance Of con-
spiracy 10 which the governor OF Co
dorado and the Idaho authorities were
parties and hence that jurisdiction
was acquired by fraud
Justice Harlan said in so far as the
Il application for a writ Of habeas cor
pus in the United States courts was
/ concerned the method Of eXtraditiOn
I Of the defendants was not material
The merits Of the cases were not in
vOIved, as that phase was not cues
/ toned. The only question involved
was the right OF the state courts 70
| proceed with the cases, Of which
| there could be no doubt
| Justice McKenna delivered dis
| senting opinion, holding that Meyer
| Haywood and PettbOne had right
| to invoke the aid Of the federal courts
! to correct improper methods used IN
| securing their eXtraditiOn. He said
/ that kidnapping under the law Is no
| more to be justified than when per
formed outside the law, where every
| effort Of authority is used to prevent
and punish it
In his dissenting opinion Justice
MeKenna said:
I'm the case at bar, the states
through their officers, are the offend
/ ers. They by an illegal exeTtion Of
power, deprived the accused OF con-
important to be observed. But 1t does
not need emphasizi1g. Kidnapping is
a crime. pure and simple. It is diff
cult to accomplish; hazardous at ev-
| cry step. All the officers Of the law
NAV be invoked against it But how Is
| il when the law becomes the kidnap-
Il err When the officers Of the law, using
| its forms and exeTting its powers,
becomes abduCtOrs2 This is not a dis
| tinCtiOn without a difference. 1t is
another form OF the crime Of kidnap-
| ing distinguished only from that COM
mitted by an individual by circum-
| stances If a state may say to one
/ within her borders and upon whom
| her process is served, I will not in
| uuire how YOU came here; I must eX-
| ceedings against those who have
| wrOnged you may she so plead
/ against her own OfenSe2 Nay she
/ claim the mere physical presence Of
| the accused within her borders Of one
! who is brought there by violence as
/ justification Of her Offense?
| Constitutional right the petitioner
Il in this case certainly did have, and
1 valuable ones. The foundation Of eX-
4 tradition between the states is that the
! accused should be a fugitive from
/ justice from the demanding state, and
/ he may challenge the fact by habeaS
| corpus Immediately upon his arrest
/ If he refutes the fact he cannot be
| removed and the right to resist re-
/ mOvaI is not a right to assume. It is
i
/ it is the right OF personal liberty in its
! most complete sense
/ Justice McKenna here inserts in his
/ opinion a statement Of the hasty in
| generation Of Meyer, Haywood and
| PettibOne and concludes:
| NO individual could have accomp-
| lished what the power OF the two
/ states accomplished. No individual
1 could have commanded the means and
1 success; could have made two arrests
/ Of prominent citizens by invading
| their homes; could have command
| ed the resources OF jails, armed
] guards and special trains; could have
successfully timed all acts to prevent
inquiry and judicial interference.
The petitioner, as soon as he cOulC
! have done so, submitted his right e
the consideration Of the federal court
He could not have done so in Colo
/ RADIO, ne could not have done so on tht
Il trip from Colorado. At the first in
slant Of time that the state Of Idaho
so far released its restraining pOwel
to enable him to consult counsel anC
appeal to the writ Of habeas corpus
he should have been heard, not dis
missed from court, and the action o
the circuit court in doing so should
be reversed"