Hellraisers Journal, Thursday December 20, 1906
From the Appeal to Reason: The Cry of Big Bill’s Little Daughter
Hellraisers Journal, Saturday December 8, 1906
U. S. Supreme Court Rules in Favor of State-Sponsored Kidnapping
The U. S. Supreme Court has ruled that kidnapping is legal as long as it is accomplished by the Governor of a state, or, as in the case of the kidnapping of Haywood, Moyer and Pettibone, done through a conspiracy between the Governors of two states: Colorado and Idaho. The lone voice for actual “law and order” upon the Court was that of Justice McKenna whose dissenting opinion states in part:
Kidnapping is a crime, pure and simple. It is difficult to accomplish; hazardous at every step. All the officers of the law are supposed to be on guard against it. All of the officers of the law may be invoked against it. But how is it when the law becomes the kidnapper?
When the officers of the law, using its forms and exerting its power, become abductors? This is not a distinction without a difference—another form of the crime of kidnapping distinguished only from that committed by an individual by circumstances. If a state may say to one within her borders and upon whom her process is served, I will not inquire how you came here; I must execute my laws and remit you to proceedings against those who have wronged you, may she so plead against her own offenses? May she claim that by mere physical presence within her borders an accused person is within her jurisdiction denuded of his constitutional rights, though he has been brought there by her violence?
[…..]
No individual could have accomplished what the power of the two states accomplished. No individual or individuals could have commanded the means and success could have made two arrests of prominent citizens by invading their homes; could have commanded the resources of jails, armed guards and special trains; could have successfully timed all acts to prevent inquiry and judicial interference. The accused, as soon as he could have done so, submitted his rights to the consideration of the courts. He could not have done so in Colorado. He could not have done so on the way from Colorado. At the first instant that the state of Idaho relaxed its restraining power he invoked the aid of habeas corpus successively of the Supreme Court of the state and of the Circuit Court of the United States. He should not have been dismissed from court, and the action of the Circuit Court in so doing should be reversed.
Hellraisers Journal, Sunday December 2, 1906
Denver, Colorado – U. S. District Court Upholds Autocracy
From the Appeal to Reason of December 1, 1906:
THE “BULL PEN” LEGALIZED!
—–Decision of Federal Judge Invests
Governors of States with
Autocratic Power.
—–
WHEN an insurrection is declared by the governor to exist in any part of Colorado a citizen of the district affected by the proclamation of the chief executive of the state may be imprisoned and detained at the will of the military authorities, according to an opinion handed down by Judge R. E. Lewis in the United States district court in Denver, Colo., Monday, November 19. Such action by the military authorities is declared not to be a violation of the fourteenth amendment, or of the law providing for the writ of habeas corpus.
This decision, which is one of the most important announced in a Colorado court in recent years, was handed down in the case of Charles H. Moyer, president of the Western Federation of Miners, vs. James H. Peabody, former governor of Colorado, Sherman Bell, former adjutant general, and Bulkeley Wells, now adjutant general, but at the time of the commission of the act of which plaintiff complained an officer in the Colorado national guard. Mr. Moyer had sued for $100,000 damages for alleged false imprisonment during the strike troubles in San Miguel county two years ago. The demurrer of the defendants was sustained.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hellraisers Journal, Sunday October 14, 1906
Washington, District of Columbia – State Kidnapping Challenged
The Appeal to Reason of October 13th published a good part of the brief presented by Attorneys Murphy, Darrow, and Richardson on behalf of Fellow Workers Moyer, Haywood, and Pettibone before the U. S. Supreme Court. The attorneys for the defense seek to free the men who were kidnapped from their homes as part of a plot perpetrated by the governors of Colorado and Idaho to deprive the men of their constitutional rights. The brief takes up an entire page of this issue of the Appeal, and we, therefore, offer this summary:
We ask and we believe that the action of the supreme court of the state of Idaho and of the circuit court of the United States, sitting in and for the state of Idaho, will be reversed, and that they will be directed to sustain the writs and direct the release of the prisoners, with an opportunity to them of returning to the state from which they were kidnaped by the conspiracy, confederation and agreement of the governors of the states of Idaho and Colorado, for the overthrow and in avoidance of a provision of the constitution of the United States and an act of congress made pursuant thereto.
Respectfully submitted.
JOHN H. MURPHY.
CLARENCE S. DARROW.
EDMUND F. RICHARDSON,
Counsel for Appellants and Plaintiffs in Error.
Saturday July 14, 1906
From Appeal to Reason: Ringing Words From Haywood
