The Ordway new era., 1906-12-07
WRIT IS DENIED
NO HAsEAs CORPUS FOR MOVER,
HAYWOOD AND PETTisoNE:
SUPREME COURT pEcIsIoS
Opinion by Justice Harian-Repre.
sentatives Of Western Federation
Of Miners Must Stay In Idaho
Prison Until They Are Tried-one
Justice Dissents.

Prison Until They Are Tried-one
Justice Dissents.
Washington.-The Supreme Court
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.
or the men involved. Charles II.
secretary-treasurer, and George A. Pet
tibone. n member OF the Western Fed.
Grafton OF Miners. They are now in
prison In Canon county. Idaho. under
a charge of numbering former Governor
Steunenberg OF that state. although 1t
was not charged that they were pres
|. ent. when the crime was committed.
The cases came to this court on an ap-
peal from n 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
Mover and his associates that thcy
were kidnapped In pursuance OF con-
spiracy to which the governor oil Coo
RADIO and the Idaho authorities were
parties and hence that jurisdiction
was acquired by fraud.
In mart Justice Harlan said:
Looking first ut what was alleged 10
have occurred In Colorado touching the
arrest OF the petitioner and his dcporta-
tion from that state, we do not perceive
that ANYTHING done there. however
hastily or inconsiderately done. can be
adjudsed 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 iact
that petitioner was. as alleged. fugi.
as aa infringement OF any right OF the
petitioner under the constitution or
laws OF the United States. He also
said that even II there was fraud In
the method OF removal there had been
no violation OF rights under the constr
tuition.
at is true" he added. "as contended
by the petitioner, that II he was not n
fugitive from justice within the mean
ing of the constitution. no warrant ior
his arrest could have been legally is'
sued by the governor OF Colorado. IL
is equally true that after the issuing OF
such a warrant before his deportation
from Colorado 1t was competent for
court, federal or state. sitting in that
state, tc inquire whether he was In fact
fugitive from justice. and IL 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
State, 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 convenient op.
portunity before some judicial tribunal
sitting In Colorado to test the question
whether he'Was n 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.
portanu to be observed. But 1t 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 1t. 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 n difference. 1t Is ar pther
form Of the crime of kidnapping ufstin.
guished only from that committed by
an individual by circumstances.
"No Individual could 1iave 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.
1.-THE petitioner, as soon as he could
have done 20, submitted his right to
the consideration of the federal court.
He could not have done SO in Colo
RADIO, he could not have done 30 on the
trip from Colorado. At the nrst In.
slant OF time that the state Of Idaho
so far released ita restraining power to
enable him to conBult counsel and ap.
peal to the writ Of habeas corpus. he |
should have been heard, not dismissed
hon court, and The antion OF the Cir
|c6it Conrt n doing 20 shculd b n. |