The Minnesota pioneer. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn. Territory) 1849-1855, 1853-05-26

the governor had jui isdiction OF the matter.
ga the 18th inst. the prisoner was discharged On
making The order, Judge WEIGH delivered the follow
/ ing:
The Importance Of This case has induced me to give
! u the most anxious consideration; and it gives me
pleasure TO acknow ledge the assistance rendered me
IN this examination, by the able arguments of the
counsel lot the respective parties. The subject of
iugtives iom justice, and fngitives from labor was
one oil as much, and pc haps more difficulty than any
mat was presented 10 the great and good men who
named our constitution, and most wisely they con-
terred the regulation OF these matters upon the Ma
tiona government
Lyman kuby Is before me pursuant to a writ {
haoeas corpus directed 10 Alden Bryant and Oliver
Looms. The return shows that he is in custody I'M
der warrant from the executive Of this Territory
issued IN conformity protessediy, with The constu-
uon ana laws oil the United States, ordering the said
Ruby to be delivered 10 Oliver LOOMS, the agent of
the State OF Ohio, who had demanded him az a flu
giuSe from justice, under the second section Of the
fourth article of the constitution Of the United States
ana the act OF Congress passed To carry INTO effect
that psovison OF the constitution.
The article OF the constitution is in these words:
"A person, charged in any State with treason, tel-
ony, Or other crime who shall flee from Justice and
" be found IN another State, shall, demand of the
executive authority of the State from which he fed
be delivered up be removed TO the State having
Z
The statute enacted to accomplish the purpose thus
expressed is follows
II hat whenever the executive authority Of
State In the Union, Of either of ,he Territories
northwest or south Of the river Ohio shall demand
any person ie tive from ius,irc of the executive
authority Of any such State or Territory to which
such person shall have fed and shall moreover pro-
4" duce the copy Of an indictment found, aliidi-
Wit made before magistrate 81 terrific
cry, as aforesaid, charging the person demanded
with treason, felony, other crime, certified
thentc by the governor chief magistrate of the
state OF territory from whence the person charged
hed II shall be the duty of the executive authority
OF the state Of territory To which such person shall
- have fled, IL cause him her to be arrested and
g secured, and notice o. the be given to the
executive autho lily making such demand, or to the
agent OF such authority, appointed TO receive the
'ustye, and to the ug tive TO be delivered to
g such agent when he shall appear"
To The return made the prisoner, among many 9TH
er allegations, replies that he not guilty j. stated
in said warrant; that he has not fled from the Justice
OF Ohio: that he left said long after the offence
charged is said have been committed that he left
publicly; that, previous 10 his departure from said
state. 1t well Known that he intended to remove
TO Ibis Territory; and that he has resided in this
Territory SINCE last fail, aud is engaged in business
here. lie also AYERS that there copy Of IN
dctment found affidavit certified to the governor
OF the territory, charging him with treason, felony or
other crime, and with beng fugitive from Justice,
&c; and he produces certain documents which he
SAYS true copies OF the reQusition Of the governor
OF Ohio and Of the papers transmitted with d requ-
sition No copy Of an indictment is sent with the
reqnisiton, aod the only evidence of any charge OF
any kind - contained IN paper, termed in the
rant, al affidavit, reading follows:
The Safe Of Ohio,
Ashabua county.
Before me- john Thomas, enc Of the justices If the
"paace for sad cou!ty, pers, nly came Daniel Nor
:" gan who being duly sworn according 10 law depos-
eth and saith, that about the fifteenth day of
:" March IN the wear thousand eight hundred and
fity-tNo, at W .udsor in the county Of Asht,bula
and State OF Ohio, the crime of forgery was commit
ted aud this deponent further says that he does
verify believe that one l. man Kuiy is guilty Of the
facts charged and further this deponent saith not
(Sisned,) DANIEL MORGAN
'Sworn 10 ami subscribed before the count,
''atnresaid this twelfth day Of January in the year
1873. JOHN THOMAS
January u, 1853, Warrant issued and given to
g the prosecuting wtncss, and directed to any consa-
:" bic Of said county for the Of he body If Ly-
9 man Rujy. JOHN THOMAS,
81 do hereby certify that the above is true copy
s. Of the proceeding had before me in my criminal
% docket. JOHN THOMAS
J.P.
To the reply the Attorney General demurs and IN
sists that admitting the facts forth in it, the pri.-
oner should not I've released. the Court has no
power to look behind the warrant Of commitment is
sue,! by the executive Of this Territory. We are
bound presume. therefore, that the ouiv evidence
tae executive had before him is the evidence con-
tanned in the papers referred to.
cannot assent the proposition that this warrant
is conclusive. Ii it is So the liberty of the citizen
is not well guarded as is general, believed.
The power vested IN the court Is derived from the
revised statutes. Or. :. 429, $. 49, "Tho party
brought before any such officer may deny OF the
g material facts forth in the return glcge anv
" fact to show either that his imprisonment or deten-
% ton is unlawful that he is entitled to his dis
6 charge; which allegations denals shall be ON
&" oath, Sc"
II this provision does not give the right to 90 be-
hind this and to show that it is Illegal and
void, ii would be difficult to frame language sufficient
" strong to do If it was not the intention of the
legislature TO give this power, language is bu poor
expression of ideas. Ii is denied that an affidavit
presented TO the governor. In other words, it is
denied that he had the legal evidence warrant his
action.
Are not these material factsl II the executive was
not authorized 10 issue the warrant, the
issued void and the detention under it mia full!
IL appears TO Inc that affirmative answer must he
given to these questions. Ii the l. void the
case is as it would be il there warrant.
The warrant Of the executive if fair upon it's face
is pima tacie sufficient.
Whether this warrant is good prina face DO not
deem it necessary TO inquire.
Independent Of the statute l think it might be
shown that the warrant is void for want of uris-
diction.
The cases cited upon the argument merely decide
that the question Of guilt innocence will not be in
qnired into, and that the errors Of inferior tribunals
cannot be reviewed by habcas corpus. The design
of that writ is to relieve the citizen from allega I'M
prsonment.
The case Of Clark o. Wendell 2l2,) has been
cited being authority against the right look
behind the The question decided in that
has little applicability the present one, but in
the opinion OF Chief Justice Savage, although that
question did not arise the right concned for in this
is clearly recognized.
The case Of the People, Mcleod, Hill, 37s,
has also been cited as in point In that case Nc
Leod imprisoned upon an indictment and the
right of gong behind the Indictment for the purpose
of proving his innocence claimed.
This properly denied. Judge Cowen in de-
livering his opinion expressly admits that a want Of
jurisdiction might be alleged and proved.
Let inquire for a moment how the executive
could acquire jurisdiction in this matter.
/. A reuusition for the fugitive from the State of