CANAL ZONE V. LUIS MENA.17

The facts appear in the opinion.
Hinckley and Ganson, for petitioner. Frank Feuile, for respondents.
THOS. E. BROWN, J. The petitions of the applicants in the above-entitled proceedings allege that the petitioners are unlawfully restrained of their liberty by the Chief of Police of the Canal Zone and his subordinates and that such restraint is not in pursuance of any writ or process of any kind issued by any court, judge, or other competent authority of the Canal Zone. Upon such allegations, writs of habeas corpus were granted by the Chief Justice and made returnable before this court.
The return of the Chief of* Police to the writs alleges in substance that the applicants are held under orders from the President of the United States issuing through the Department of War and that they are only under such restraint or surveillance as is necessary to require them to remain within the limits of the Canal Zone; that they were engaged in a revolution against. the constituted government of Nicaragua; that it became necessary for the United States, to land its armed forces in Nicaragua for the protection of American interests and the American Legation; that as a necessity for the furtherance of these purposes the armed forces of the United States engaged in hostilities with the armed forces of the applicants; that during the hostilities the applicants surrendered to the commander of the forces of the'United States, upon condition that they be brought to the Isthmus and remain within the limits of the Canal Zone; and that the applicants were thereupon placed upon a warship, brought to the Canal Zone and placed under such surveillance as was necessary to prevent their departure from the limits of the Canal Zone.
The matter came on for argument before the court on the 5th day of November, 1912. The argument on behalf of the applicants was in the nature of a demurrer tothe return. For the purposes of such demurrer the applicants admitted the truth of the allegations contained in the return but requested that if the court should not sustain their demurrer they be allowed to traverse the allegations of the return to the effect that the applicants had engaged in revolution or had consented to come to the Canal Zone and remain within its limits.
In the court's view of the law applicable to the matter it is of no importance whether or not as a matter of fact the applicants

171