corpus denied in spite of the fact of a direct prohibition by the constitution of the State, in spite of the fact that the courts were open and unobstructed. Persons outside the military zone were arrested, dragged before military courts, tried, and sentenced under so-called martial law. Upon appeal to the Civil courts … the military authorities were upheld, in spite of the oath of the judges to support the constitution … which provides that—

No citizen unless engaged in the military service of the State, shall be tried or punished by any military court for any offense which is cognizable by the civil courts of the State,

and

The writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended.

Although uniformly held that the writ of habeas corpus can only be suspended by the legislature, in these labor disturbances the executive has in fact suspended or disregarded the writ. In labor cases the judiciary either disregards the fact that the writ has been suspended by the executive or evades the issue. In non-labor cases the courts have protested emphatically when the executive attempted to interfere. In cases of military operation because of non-labor disturbances, the judiciary has almost without exception protested against the exercise of any arbitrary power …. In labor agitations the judiciary has uniformly upheld the power exercised by the military, and in no case has there been any protest against the use of such power or any attempt to curtail it, except in Montana, where the conviction of a civilian by a military commission was annulled.³⁹

This statement cites the cases of the Kentucky Night Riders when in an almost real insurrection, the writ of habeas corpus was not suspended.⁴⁰

IN IDAHO

Martial law first supplanted civil processes in industrial conflicts during the strike in the Coeur d'Alenes mines, Idaho,