Hellraisers Journal: From The North American Review: “The Miners and the Law of Treason” by James G. Randall, Part II

Share

Quote Fred Mooney, Mingo Co Gunthugs, UMWJ p15, Dec 1, 1920—————

Hellraisers Journal – Monday September 4, 1922
Charles Town, West Virginia – Miners on Trial for Treason Against the State, Part II

From The North American Review of September 1922:

THE MINERS AND THE LAW OF TREASON

BY JAMES G. RANDALL

[Part II of II]

Billy Blizzard and Family, Lt Dg p14, June 17, 1922

Turning to the case of the miners, we find that the offense for which they (or rather a selected number of them) are held is treason against the State of West Virginia. In the Constitution of the State of West Virginia there is the following provision:

Treason against the State shall consist only in levying war against it, or in adhering to its enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court. Treason shall be punished, according to the character of the acts committed, by the infliction of one or more of the penalties of death, imprisonment or fine, as may be prescribed by law.

It will be noticed that the provisions in the West Virginia Constitution resemble those of the Federal Constitution in the definition of the offense and the requirements as to evidence sustaining the overt act, but that the State Constitution goes farther than that of the United States in that it specifies the general nature of the punishment. An examination of the West Virginia code shows that the punishment, as further defined by the Legislature, shall be death, or, at the discretion of the jury, confinement in the penitentiary not less than three nor more than ten years and confiscation of the real and personal estate. Withholding knowledge of treason, attempting to justify armed insurrection by written or printed words, or engaging in an unlawful assemblage, are punishable by lesser penalties, thus indicating that these offenses are regarded as distinct from treason itself. As to what constitutes “levying war” against the State, this is largely a matter for interpretation by the court, and it appears that Judge Woods has made considerable use of Federal as well as State decisions in determining his rulings.

The acts for which the miners are on trial took place in connection with the serious outbreak of August, 1921. As a climax of years of growing hostility, during which the United Mine Workers had made repeated efforts to unionize the mine fields of Logan and Mingo counties, several hundred men assembled on August 20 at Marmet, West Virginia, with the intention of making some kind of demonstration or attack, the exact purpose of which is disputed. An important feature of the case is that the Governor had previously proclaimed martial law in Mingo County, and had sent State troops into that county to preserve order. It is the contention of the prosecution that the acts of the miners constituted a defiance of this martial law, and an intention to resist the troops.

An appeal by “Mother Jones”, a well-known leader among the miners, failed to disperse them, and the armed force, picturesquely uniformed in blue overalls and red bandanna handkerchiefs, proceeded on their march. The first violence occurred at Sharples in Boone County, where a small force of State police was resisted by the miners while seeking to serve warrants upon men wanted by the Logan County authorities. Several miners were killed and from this time the march assumed much more alarming proportions. By the time the Boone-Logan county line was reached the invaders numbered about eight thousand. Don Chafin, sheriff of Logan County, raised a defending force of approximately two thousand which he commanded until, after some delay, Governor Morgan commissioned Colonel Eubanks to take charge with State troops. For over a week the opposing “armies” confronted each other over an extended mountainous battle-front in the neighborhood of Blair, and there was considerable detached fighting. On the defending side three deputy sheriffs were killed, and it was for their deaths that the indictments for murder were drawn. Probably more than twenty of the invaders lost their lives.

Continue reading “Hellraisers Journal: From The North American Review: “The Miners and the Law of Treason” by James G. Randall, Part II”

Hellraisers Journal: From The North American Review: “The Miners and the Law of Treason” by James G. Randall, Part I

Share

Quote Fred Mooney, Mingo Co Gunthugs, UMWJ p15, Dec 1, 1920—————

Hellraisers Journal – Sunday September 3, 1922
Charles Town, West Virginia – Miners on Trial for Treason Against the State, Part I

From The North American Review of September 1922:

THE MINERS AND THE LAW OF TREASON

BY JAMES G. RANDALL

[Part I of II]

Battle of Blair Mt, WV Today by Bushnell, Guards, Gunthugs, Spies, UMWJ p5, Sept 15, 1921

Once again the quiet village of Charles Town, West Virginia, in the historic Shenandoah valley, has furnished the setting for a memorable State trial. As in 1859, when John Brown went to the gallows for a traitorous assault which was misconceived as a stroke for Abolition, so in the present year the eyes of the nation have been focused upon this same little county seat while hundreds of miners have faced trial on indictments for murder and treason in connection with the “insurrection” of August, 1921. Twenty-four of the miners who were associated with the armed march of several thousand men directed against the coal fields of Logan and Mingo counties have been charged with the grave offense of “treason”, and it is with this phase of the question that the present article proposes to deal. Many circumstances unite to make the trials notable. The long continued efforts of the United Mine Workers to unionize the West Virginia fields, the elaborate litigation which included several federal injunction suits, the huge scale as well as the gravity of the indictments, the intensity of the industrial disputes involved, and the challenge to the State authorities to uphold elemental social order and yet deal fairly with both sides in an unusually bitter struggle-all these factors lift the case above the level of an ordinary criminal proceeding. Without attempting, however, to discuss the industrial phases of the “miners’ war”, the writer proposes to view the cases from a restricted angle and to consider their relation to the history of treason in our legal system.

Though the charge against the miners is the rara avis of treason against a State, the analogy of this crime with treason against the United States is very close, and it may therefore be useful to recall some of the outstanding points in the history of national treason. Treason is the only crime which the Federal Constitution undertakes to define. It consists “only in levying war against the United States or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort”. To prove treason, the commission of an overt act must be established by at least two witnesses, unless there is a confession in open court. Congress has no authority to fix the nature of the crime, and can neither enlarge nor restrict the offense beyond the constitutional definition. Congress may, however, fix the punishment, and among the acts passed by the first Congress ever assembled under the Constitution was the Treason Law of 1790, which established the penalty of death for this highest of crimes.

In the course of time a well recognized body of principles has grown up around the law of treason. Thus it is recognized that “constructive treason” has no place in our legal system. There must be an actual levying of war. A mere plotting, gathering of arms, or assemblage of men is not treason, in case no overt act is committed. The “levying war”, however, has been rather broadly defined by our courts. Besides formal or declared war, it includes an insurrection or combination which forcibly opposes the Government or resists the execution of its laws. Engaging in an insurrection to prevent the execution of a law is treason, because this act amounts to levying war. The mere uttering of words of treasonable import does not constitute the crime, nor is mere sympathy with the enemy sufficient to warrant conviction.

Treason differs from other crimes in that there are no accessories. All are principals, including those whose acts would, in the case of felonies, make them accessories. Those who take part in the conspiracy which culminates in treason are principals, even though absent when the overt act is committed.

Continue reading “Hellraisers Journal: From The North American Review: “The Miners and the Law of Treason” by James G. Randall, Part I”