The State Paid the Troops That Faced the Coal Riots
Washington's Supreme Court ruled that militia sent to Gilman, Franklin and Newcastle during the 1891 coal-mine troubles acted in the state's service — and the state, not King County, had to pay.
The story, cleaned up
A cleaned-up reading of the newspaper page: spelling and layout repaired, one story lifted off a crowded page. It follows the original closely but it is not a transcription. The original page is below; read it if a detail matters.
The supreme court has granted the peremptory writ prayed for by a portion of the state militia to compel the board of military auditors to audit the vouchers for services during the King county troubles, such services, the appellants contending, being for the state.
On June 24 a body of armed men riotously threatened to destroy the buildings and machinery connected with the operations of a valuable coal mine at Gilman. The manager of the mine appealed to Colonel Haines for troops. The colonel declined to act without orders, but forwarded to Governor Ferry a telegram stating the condition of affairs, which, with the reply, have already been printed in The Tribune. On the evening of June 27 a pitched battle occurred between the contending factions at Franklin, and before daybreak Companies B and D were at the scene. On June 29 Companies D and E were sent to Gilman to quell an outbreak there, and remained on duty until July 16. At Franklin, Newcastle, Black Diamond and Gilman, the rioters continued to move in armed bodies, when the governor wired Colonel Haines to disarm all unauthorized armed bodies where there was danger of riot or a breach of the peace. In order to be on the safe side, and not deeming his force sufficient to carry out such suggestions, Colonel Haines wired the governor asking if his order allowed him to use, if necessary for the preservation of the peace, any companies of this regiment other than those now in the field. To this the governor replied: "You can use all of the First regiment for the purpose indicated in my dispatch this morning, if necessary."
The supreme court says, in summing up the case:
"We find therefore, that these troops were engaged in the state's business, and were therefore in the state's service. Their position is well illustrated by the case of Martin vs. Mott, 12 Wheaton 30. ... The first, last and only duty of the soldier is to obey the command of his superior officer when called upon to march with his comrades, and if he does not obey he is punished under the statute. The supreme executive power of the state is vested in the governor, and by the terms of the militia article of the constitution he has power to call forth the militia to execute the laws of the state. ... In these cases prevention is to be desired, not cure; and it is to be hoped that for all time in this state, as in this case, a show of force, without the firing of a shot, will be sufficient to secure respect for the law and the safety of the people. ... Let the peremptory writ issue as prayed for."
Stiles, J. We concur: Anders, C.J.; Hoyt, J.; Scott, J.; Dunbar, J.
“The first, last and only duty of the soldier is to obey the command of his superior officer when called upon to march with his comrades.”
The 1891 ruling settled who paid for troops during coal-country unrest, but the deeper fight — between mine operators, armed miners and a governor's emergency power — has a familiar shape. Modern labor disputes still raise the question of who bears the cost of policing and whether the state steps in on one side or the other.
From readers
No comments yet. If you know something about this story — a correction, a family memory, a source — it belongs here.