Lewisburg chronicle. [volume] (Lewisburg, Pa.) 1850-1859, 1853-06-24

may have fed beyond The rI2hl 10 know til;t
.he offence charged is crime IN ihe H'a'e
where committed, then the mandate, that he
n, ,bc be removed 10 the State having Jurlsd,c-
90, would be superiiuous. II the rig 1t CLAIM
ed by your Excelencv exists for the purposes
of p,ui.,tion even As 10 4 ciiiZcn O! the S;atc
10 which he has fled, il follows that II also ex-
lets Tor all the purposes OF trlal aud punish
nent: principle entirely rcpusnant 10 The
well se,i!et policy Of the criminal law, The Ju-
rsdiclion as 10 the guilt or innocence OF tie
accused being vested exclusively III the courts
Of the State or place where The offence was
committed. Nor is ithecCssary to argue mat
legislative jurisdiction over this SUBJECT Is vest
cd solely and exclusively IN Congress.
THIS point has been clearly nlail'a'h'u 'T
the Supreme Court OF the UniieG states. IN
der this view Of the case, as settled by the
hiphps, tribunal known TO the law, the posi-
lion cont.ndcd ior by your Excellency derives
TO strength from a supposed analogy 10 The
nroceet,nes under a wrii Of habcas corpus, OF
The duries of a committing magistrate. In
these, | spprehend the proceeding Is regulated
by the statute OF the respective States, or set
tied by the practice OF the courts, and can only,
IN apv case, apply 10 the arrest aud deientiUn
under tie local law-It cannot nicifele with
the paramount authority OF the Constitution
and acts OF Congress. Assuming, for illustra-
lion, iha, your EYceIlcncy had complied with
The requisirlun, and alter the arrest aud dellv-
cry Of the accused 10 the agent Of Pennsy Iva
MIA. n writ Of habcas corpus bad issued Tor
their liberation, the legality Of their dcien'Iop
could be the only subject OF inquiry before the
count. ii, in the language of The Supreme
Court, already referred 10, the act OF Congress
supcrccdes all State Legislation on the sulJ'ci,
and ty necessary implication lrohbiis II, hcw
can the Executive Of a State exercise power
expressl, withheld from the Legislature, upon
the most Important considerations. Even ID
the ordinary p-acticc, under the VIII OF habcas
corpus, | submit, that the only matter proper
" eyaminable would be The legality of tic de-
tsntion # the accused and The balidtie nature
Of the offence. 1t would seem novel pro-
o..dIng indeed, 10 60 behind the record 81 a
committing magistrate, and INQUIRE IN this
collateral way into The gull, or innocence Of
the accused. Be this rs II may, however, the
very point is settled in New York and doubt
less 10 other States. In the case ci Clark, re-
corded in the OH. Mendcl, page 2l2. The
person charged had been arrested on rcGulSI-
lion 10 the Executive of New Nuik aud GtiIv-
cred TO the proper authorities, and a wrIt ci
babras corpus awarded for his hbcIailon,' hiei
Justice Savage decided that:
On nahcas cOIlus, a court or Judge, be-
fore whom Is brought prisoner arrested rs i
fugitive fIom Justice, by a warrant rom 'he
Executive O! one State on the rcTGlsltlon ui
an Executive Of another State, under ike Con-
etnuiion and laws of the United States, 'cH
NOT rRcuire rs 10 Ne1qoJab'c sHh Of the oc-
cusc9. The cny inquiry is whether The war
rant on which he is arrested states that the iu-
eitlve has been demanded 10y the Executive OF
the State from which he is alleged TO have
fed, and that copy OF the Indictment or an
affidavit charging him with having committed
treason, felony or other, certified by the Exec
uiive demanding him as authentic, have been
presented.
From this view Of the question, i, follows
Then. that the ouly proper inquiry by the En-
.cui,ve AUTHORITY OF the State upon which
Ycqusiion is made, is the strict legality Of the
voceedings. Your Excelencv may BE- under
erood by your silence 10 coDccdc, lst. That
the demand Of The Executive Of Fennsy lvanla
was IN proper form. 2nd. That copy Of the
iudcrmen, found, accompanied the r,qulsluon,
md Sd. That The offence with whhh the par
ties were charged. Is crime 10 Pennsy lvanIa.
II there has bceE doubt on your mind rs TO
,he latter point, II must be removed by the
case ,ust cited, where il is also held, that an
offence made lndictable by a statute, Is a crime
within the meaning OF the Federal CunstIiu-
,,cn. By statute, the offence Of kidnapping is
made Indictable in your State as well as IN
this. and the crime regarded as odious IN to'h
II State Executive can not then, under The
Constitution and laws, exercise the right OF M
curing into the guilt or nnoceBce OF party
chaIg,d with CRIME, what is there in public
policy or in the CHARACTERISTICS of the case un-
der consideration, TO sustain such a dangerous
-. IL ,.,l L.
Jury, the most sacred and time honorod Of hu
man institutions is justly regarded as the grca,
rafe-guard of our liberty and prosperity. Any
other mode of establishing our rights judicially
must be regarded as usurpa,ion Of power and
dangerous 10 the integrity OF our institutions.
Next 10 this is the night 10 be tried by a jury
OF the vicinage which in criminal accusation is
duty and right. As already inrimat.d if
the power 10 60 behind the record 10 examine
,he facts, exists in particular sense, i, can be
exercised in general one. If your Excellen-
ey has right 10 pass upon the guilt Of M'Crc-
ary and Merit, IN order 10 avoid the hazard Of
on unfair and prcjudced trial IN Pennsy lvania,
wbat limit would you assign 10 the exercise OF
this Jowef2 Where shall the duties OF thr
Executive end and those of the jury commence! Z!
Let il be the ordinary case OF fugitive from
justice, without the claims Of citizenship, and
no distinction IN principle can be drawn, what
protection could The accused have, if the prin-
ciple contended for be the true one! ii the
righ. exists al ALL ii exists for the purposes ol
triai--and the inevitablc consequences would
Re, that the accused might be twice tried and
leo1arded for the same offence. If tried and
even acquitted IN the State 10 which he had
fed, 1t would be no bar 10 second trial, fox
the same offence, 10 The State from whence he
fed. 1t is thus apparent, rha, the doctrine ol
right coriended Tor is not only virtual dsrc'
gard OF the law, but might, in practice, he NJ,
rsrlv destructive 10 the rights OF the accused
The letter of the Constitution certainly gives
no latitude 10 Executive discretion and If moi
a necessary result, from lis spirit, or the poll
oy Of the Law, then II would follow that The
duty Of an Executive Is a plain one. II salts
fled that the forms required by the Constitution
and laws Of CongIess have been complied with,
and 'hs, the offence charged IS crime where
committed, there can be no other dctermiHa-
,'on than TO deliver up the alleged fugitive
from Justice 10 the authority lawfully demand
Ing him.
The administration Of the Constitution and
laws nrovItlinr for the r,ndii,On of fuuI;iycs