Gilpin observer., 1906-12-06
WRIT IS DENIED
NO HABEAs CORPUS FOR MOVER,
HAYWOOD AND PETTIeoNE.
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

tVdok Skdy w ioouo
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 Moyer 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 contine-
ment for trial in Idaho.
OF the men involved, Charles H.
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 We're pres,
ent when the crime was committed,
The cases came to this court on an APP
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 it was alleged on behalf OF
Mover and his associates that they
were kidnapped in pursuance or 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 dcporta-
ton from that state, we do not perceive
that anything done there, however
hastily or inconsiderately done, can be
adjudged 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. fugi-
tive from Justice, cannot be regarded
as al 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.
at is true" he added. "as contended
by the petitioner, that II he was not
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. 1t
is equally true that after the issuing OF
such a warrant before his deportation
from Colorado it WAS competent for n
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
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 az to afford him convenient OPP
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,
their officers. are the offend
ers. They, by an Illegal exertion OF
powe., deprived the accused of n con-
,ti al Tho al ct n n inn ig inn
portant to be observed. But it does
not need emphasizing. Kidnapping is
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 1t
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 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
rado, he could not have done so on the
trip from Colorado. At the first in.
slant 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.