—————
Hellraisers Journal – Thursday December 10, 1903
Denver, Colorado – R. E. Croskey Interviewed, Does Not Fear Bullpen
From The Denver Post of December 9, 1903:
[Photograph of Croskey added.]
Tag: Cripple Creek District Bull Pen of 1903
Hellraisers Journal: Mass Arrests of Union Men Follows Upon Vindicator Explosion; Military Seizes Miners at Altman, Independence and Victor
—————
Hellraisers Journal – Friday November 27, 1903
Colorado Military Arrests Striking Miners at Altman, Independence and Victor
From The Rocky Mountain News of November 24, 1903:
Hellraisers Journal: Major McClelland of Colorado: “To Hell With the Constitution, We Are Going by the Governor’s Orders.”
—————
Hellraisers Journal – Tuesday October 13, 1903
Major McClelland Explains Military Despotism in the Cripple Creek Strike Zone
Report of Emma F. Langdon of Victor, Colorado:
“TO HELL WITH THE CONSTITUTION.”
“To hell with the constitution. We are going by the governor’s orders,” said Major McClelland, acting judge advocate and counsel for the military authorities, according to the statement of Attorney John M. Glover [published in the Victor Daily Record of October 4th]:
I was in the office of District Attorney Trowbridge when Tom McClelland and Willis V. Elliott were preparing information against Editor Kyner for libel. Referring to the seizure of the office of the Victor Record, I said to McClelland, “Your people apparently have not much respect for the constitution. That was a blow at the freedom of the press,” to which McClelland replied: “To h— with the constitution. We are going by the governor’s orders.” To which I replied: “We will have some of you fellows pleading for your liberty before a jury where the governor’s orders don’t go.” McClelland replied: “We will take care of that when we come to it.” Elliot was present and heard this conversation.”
Immediately upon the appearance of the foregoing, McClelland denied that he made the remark that he was not going by the constitution, which at once brought forth the following from Mr. Glover:
Cripple Creek, Colo.,
Oct. 5, 1903.Editor of the Daily Record, Victor, Colo.:
Dear Sir:—The conversation reported in your issue of October 4, as having occurred between Thomas McClelland, judge advocate of the National Guard and myself, took place explicitly and exactly as stated by your correspondent. My version of the matter will be accepted by the people of this section and by any jury before which McClelland shall be tried. I repeat that this conversation took place in the immediate presence and hearing of Willis V. Elliott, also an officer of the National Guard, and I cherish the hope that Mr. Elliott has too much regard for his honor and his uniform to join in McClelland’s denial.
Very truly yours,
JOHN M. GLOVER[Newsclip and emphasis added.]
Hellraisers Journal: Emma F. Langdon Reports: Judge Seeds Takes a Stand Against Military Monarchy and for the Constitution
—————
Hellraisers Journal – Thursday October 1, 1903
Cripple Creek, Colorado – Judge Seeds Defends Constitutional Government
Cartoon by A. W. Steele of the The Denver Post:
Report of Emma F. Langdon of Victor, Colorado:
Judge Seeds Thursday morning (September 24) notified General Chase to be present in court with his prisoners [Parker, Campbell, Lafferty, McKinney] before 2 o’clock in the afternoon, as promptly at that hour he would render a decision in the habeas corpus case. Chase stated that whatever the decision of the court might be, he would certainly bring the prisoners back to Camp Goldfield unless otherwise ordered by the governor of Colorado. At 1:30 the military appeared with the same old pomp, minus the gatling gun. (Formerly of Wyoming.)
After patiently listening for several hours, Judge Seeds ordered the prisoners released and handed over to the civil authorities, and gave reasons for his decision in a long and carefully compiled argument from which I quote a few:
[Judge Seeds Speaks:]
If the court shall err in its conclusions, it will be no fault of the able counsel who appear for and against the prisoner. Extraordinary industry has been displayed by counsel in the production of authorities, and the questions involved have been discussed with unusual ardor, eloquence and logic. As the result of counsel’s labors, and the great attention and consideration the court has given to their arguments and authorities, it feels clear in its conclusions, and can announce them without any misgiving.
The importance of the questions cannot be over estimated. They embrace not only the power and authority of the commander of the military forces of the state over the freedom of the citizens in times of local disturbances that may more or less imperil life and property, but also the very fundamental principles of American liberty…..
For the reason that the governor recites in the order, he directs the brigadier general commanding the National guard to forthwith order out the troops, etc., specified, to properly enforce the constitution and laws of the state, and to prevent the threatened insurrection and to protect all persons and property in said county from unlawful interference, and to see that threats, intimidations, assaults and all acts of violence cease and that public peace and order be preserved. I take it that what all these commands mean is that the brigadier general should, with the National guard, support and enforce the laws within the prescribed district. That the case presented by the petition required that the habeas corpus should issue as prayed admits of no question. The question is, does the executive order, admitting all that it recites as the basis for it, to be true, and that General Chase arrested and detained the prisoners by virtue of that order, constitute a justification of the act……
The threatened insurrection referred to in the order was in connection with a strike in the Cripple Creek district by the metaliferous miners. It is not denied that they quit work peacefully; but it was feared by some and claimed by others that in the course of the strike persons would be injured and property destroyed and that the insurrection was threatened by an organization known as the Western Federation of Miners to which the striking miners belonged. Whether the fear was well or ill founded it is not for the court to say. It will accept the statement in the executive order as the truth. It feels bound to do so from the respect which one of the co-ordinate branches of the state government should always entertain for the other two…..
I take it to be fundamental that, except a state of war exists, a state in which all civil authority is overthrown, what is known as “martial law” cannot exist or be declared under our state constitution…..
Hellraisers Journal: Emma F. Langdon Reports on the Military Seizure of the Town of Cripple Creek by General Sherman Bell
—————
Hellraisers Journal – Wednesday September 30, 1903
Cripple Creek, Colorado – General Bell Captures Town as Miners Marched to Court
Cartoon by A. W. Steele of the The Denver Post:
Report of Emma F. Langdon of Victor, Colorado:
Friday Sept. 18, was the day the prisoners [Messrs. Parker, Campbell, Lafferty and McKinney] were to be produced by the military. The writs issued by Judge Seeds being returnable on that date. Tom McClelland appeared in the district court that morning to represent Generals Chase and Bell, who were not present, and asked for a continuance of the habeas corpus cases for five days. This was refused by Judge Seeds, on the grounds that the respondents had made no return upon the writ, neither producing the prisoners in court, or showing cause why the order of the court had not been complied with. McClelland then stated to the court that if given until 2 o’clock in the afternoon, he would make a return on the writ and then argue the question of continuance.
When court convened at 10 o’clock McClelland arose and, with folded arms, addressed the court, stating that he represented the respondents, Chase and Bell, and on their behalf asked for a continuance. He said: “A great many question are involved in this case, and owing to the duties of the military camp I have not had the time to prepare such an answer as I would like to present to this court. Under this statute it is discretionary with the court to allow five days for an answer. I would, therefore, ask until Monday morning or longer to do so.”
General Eugene Engley, counsel for the prisoners, objected. He said: “There has not been sufficient showing to warrant the continuance sought by Brother McClelland. The statute is very clear on this point. It says that only upon the return of the writ a day shall be set for a hearing. A continuance must be made after a return of the writ, which has not been made. Whether an imprisonment has been made by the military forces or by civil officers, that person ought to know before making an arrest what is the authority for doing so, and he should be ready at any time to make a showing of his position.” McClelland said that upon the return that day the court might make an order for continuance, either for making a return or for a hearing.
John Murphy, general attorney for the Western Federation said: “The order of this court was to produce these prisoners. The respondents are in contempt because they have not done so, and have given no reason to the court why they have failed to produce the prisoners. Without warrants citizens of this commonwealth have been thrown into prison. The military is only the reserve police of the state, and cannot hold a man longer than absolutely necessary to take him before a magistrate.’’ The court said that section 2108 of the code contemplates a return of the parties to whom a writ is directed. He added: “That would be a foundation for the court to consider the questions at issue. Upon that the court would be advised that there are matters subject to trial. It would then be within the province of the court to fix a time for a hearing. Moreover, it is the judgment of the court that on a proper showing the time of the return may be extended, but that the showing must be one upon which the court should be advised that more time may be necessary. Mr. McClelland’s showing is not sufficient. It should be supported by facts and circumstances.”