Los Angeles herald., 1910-06-20

course of a year at the Girard postoffice.
This certainly establishes my good faith. NO
man with criminal intent would voluntarily
submit the evidence OF his contemplated crime
to the agent of the institution against which
the crime directed.
1t will be argued by counsel for the gov
ernment that kidnapping is crime and, there
fore an offer of reward to kidnap ex-
Gov TAYLOR is a threat against that GENTLE
man. 1 will ask the counsel for the govern
ment to cite the federal law constituting
KIDNAPPING a crime. He cannot do this on the
other hand the United States supreme court
IN an exhaustive opinion handed down in
the case of the three workingmen who had
been kidnapped in Colorado and taken to Idaho
plainly states that it is violation of the
federal statutes TO forclbly abduct a man
and take him from state to another. In
its opinion the supreme court says;
Looking first at what alleged to have
occurred in Colorado touching the arrest of
the petitioner and his deportation from that
state we do not perceive that anything
done there, however hastily or inconsider-
ately done can be adjudged to be in viola
t,on of the constitution or laws Of the United
States Even if it be true that the arrest
and deportation of Pettibone, Meyer and Hay
wood from Colorado was by fraud and con-
nivance to which the governor of Colorado
WAC n
Of violation of the rights OF the appellants
under the constitution and laws of the United
States"
Under this decision I do not see what
weight this court can give to the argument
Of the governments counsel, that to offer a
reward to do what the supreme court has
explicitly declared is not a crime is in VIOLA
tion of the law
What l did in fact, was to offer a reward
uybo aDduCt,
II YOU please a man under Indictment for
nurder and return him to the Kentucky au-
thorities To kidnap means not only forcible
abduction but hiding from friends and the
proper authorities Under this view how can
it be maintained that it is unlawful to offer
a reward for the capture of ex-Gov. William
S. Taylor and his return to the authorities
of Kentucky?
Let me state a hypothetical case: Suppose
the Socialists capture the political powers of
Kansas-as we shall We find that Mr.. Ar
mour is violating the antitrust laws OF our
state He lives in Illinois. The governor
of Illinois, being a Republican. refuses to
grant a requisition. Suppose our Socialist
state officials, who would be private citizens
in Illinois, should quietly go at midnight
surround Mr.. Armour's house in Chicago, cap
ture him. carry him into Kansas, and there
place him trial before a Socialist judge
and a Socialist jury. Would the men that
kidnaped Armour violate any federal statute?
Would they not be immune from prosecu-
Ii, under the supreme courts ruling?
This question involved in this case is
whether there is one law for the workingman
and another law for the rich employer. The
supreme courts decision in the famous kid
naping conspiracy in Colorado and the action
of high government and state officials in pro-
tecting a fugitive Republican politician
to
tention that there is one Interpretation Of
the law for the poor and another one for
the rich. The action Of the governor of New
Jersey in refusing to issue requlsition papers
for Armour. the Chicago meat packer. who
was charged by the New Jersey prosecutors