In re Boyle

Decision Date16 June 1899
Citation6 Idaho 609,57 P. 706
PartiesIN RE WILLIAM BOYLE
CourtIdaho Supreme Court

HABEAS CORPUS-INSURRECTION.-In case of insurrection or rebellion the governor, or military officer in command, for the purpose of suppressing the same, may suspend the writ of habeas corpus, or disregard such writ, if issued.

SAME-PROCLAMATION OF GOVERNOR.-The truth of recitals of alleged facts in a proclamation issued by the governor proclaiming a certain county of the state to be in a state of insurrection and rebellion will not be inquired into or reviewed on application for a writ of habeas corpus.

SUSPENSION OF WRIT-MARTIAL LAW-MILITARY FORCES.-The proclamation of the governor declaring Shoshone county to be in a state of rebellion, and his action in calling to his aid the military forces of the United States for the purpose of restoring good order and the supremacy of the law, had the effect to put into force, to a limited extent, martial law in said county and such action is not in violation of the constitution, but in harmony with it, being necessary for the preservation of the government and its necessary self-defense.

(Syllabus by the court.)

Original proceeding upon application for writ of habeas corpus.

Demurrer sustained, and writ denied.

T. C Robertson, Patrick Reddy and Plat B. Elderkin, for Petitioner, file no brief.

Samuel H. Hays, Attorney General, files no brief.

HUSTON, C. J. Quarles and Sullivan, JJ., concur.

OPINION

HUSTON, C. J.

This is an application for a writ of habeas corpus. To the petition a general demurrer is filed. The only question presented for our determination is, Does the petition state facts entitling the petitioner to the writ? The petition alleges the illegal detention of the petitioner, and sets forth the alleged cause of, and authority for, such detention; and it is upon the alleged illegality or want of authority therefor that petitioner bases his right to the writ. As to the facts set up in the petition, so far as not contradictory or conflicting, for the purposes of this decision, in so far as they are assumed to be true, do they constitute sufficient ground for the issuance of the writ? It appears from the petition that on the fourth day of May, 1899, the governor of the state of Idaho issued the following proclamation:

"State of Idaho Executive Office.

"Whereas, it appearing to my satisfaction that the execution of process is frustrated and defied in Shoshone county, state of Idaho by bodies of men and others, and that combinations of armed men to resist the execution of processes and to commit deeds of violence exist in said county of Shoshone; and whereas, the civil authorities of said county of Shoshone do not appear to be able to control such bodies of men, or prevent the destruction of property and other acts of violence; and whereas, on Saturday, the twenty-ninth day of April, 1899, at or near the town of Wardner Junction, in said county of Shoshone, state of Idaho an armed mob did then and there wantonly destroy property of great value, with attendant loss of life; and whereas, said destruction of property, with attendant loss of life, by mob violence, as above set forth, is but one and a repetition of a series of similar outrages covering a period of six years or more just passed, the perpetrators of said outrages seeming to enjoy immunity from arrest and punishment through subserviency of peace officers of said county of Shoshone, or through fear on the part of said officers to such bodies of lawless and armed men; and whereas, I have reason to believe that similar outrages may occur at any time, and believing the civil authorities of said county of Shoshone are entirely unable to preserve order and protect property: Now, therefore, I, Frank Steunenberg, governor of the state of Idaho by virtue of authority in me vested, do hereby proclaim and declare the said county of Shoshone, in the state of Idaho to be in a state of insurrection and rebellion. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused to be affixed the great seal of the state. Done at the city of Boise, the capital of the state of Idaho this fourth day of May, A. D. 1899, and of the independence of the United States of America, the one hundred and twenty-third.

"FRANK STEUNENBERG.

"By the Governor.

"M. PATRIE,

"Secretary of State."

That thereafter, upon the call of the governor, a military force was sent into said Shoshone county by the President of the United States, which proceeded at once to secure the arrest of ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Idaho State AFL-CIO v. Leroy
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • January 29, 1986
    ...upon which the Governor declared to have prompted his action. The Gallet Court might have drawn a better comparison to In re Boyle, 6 Idaho 609, 57 P. 706 (1899). Article 3, § 15, as here pertinent, reads in part that the legislature may "in case of urgency," by a two-thirds vote of either ......
  • Russell Petroleum Co. v. Walker
    • United States
    • Oklahoma Supreme Court
    • February 7, 1933
    ...the state court. See: State v. Holden, 64 N.C. 829; Appeal of Hartranft, 85 Pa. 433; Kendall v. United States, 12 Peters 610; In re Boyle, 6 Idaho 609, 57 P. 706; In re Moyer, 35 Colo. 159, 85 P. 190; State v. Brown, 71 W. Va. 519, 77 S.E. 243; Hatfield v. Graham, 73 W. Va. 759, 81 S.E. 533......
  • State v. Corcoran
    • United States
    • Idaho Supreme Court
    • July 3, 1900
    ...his inability or disqualification it became the duty of the court to appoint an elisor. (Idaho Rev. Stats., secs., 1887, 2085; In re Boyle, 6 Idaho 609, 57 P. 706.) Even if appointment of the acting sheriff was void, yet his acts as a de facto officer were good. (People v. Roberts, 6 Cal. 2......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT