The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1859-08-02
IA w INTELLHGENCE.

CIRCUIT Court OF BALTIMORE CITY-Exparte
oaughter. The petition for a hdJeos corpus in
IN Ins case was further argued by Messrs. Wallis and
SaI'1n idUnlaS anu nnaly discussed in part by Mr..
9chley, yesterday. The petitioner was indicted in
June last, las heretofore reported by the Grand
Jury of Hindes county, Miss for obtaining money
upon draft, drawn and negotiated by himself un-
der false p:etenccs, as TO his riubt 10 draw tbo
same A requisition from the Governor of Missis
sppl, under the seal of that State accompanyino
and authenticating a copy of the Indictment, was
presented to Gov. Hicks by the agent of the State
OF Mississippi, and the Governor bavinm satisfnd
himself of the regularity of the requisitiop. sgned
ana transmitted warrant to the Secretary of
state, who was in Baltimore, to be filled nm and
countersgned by that officer the seal of the State
naVlng been already attached, the Secretary of
state hllei up and cOuntersigned the warrant and
delivered it to the Sheriff. who had the petitioner
~ custody when the habeas corpus was issued
The grounds on which the discharge is souobt
seem to be altogether Of a formal character II is
alleged - 10
l. That Governor Hicks warrant does mot cor-
tain statement its face, of his having received
copy OF The indictment from Mississippi hut onlv
that 1T appeared to him, from certain documents''
sen! WIN the requsltlon, that the party had been
indicted for false pretences in Mississippi
z. That the requsition does not charge false pre
tences to be crime, but only annexes and certfes
an Indictment charging the offence to be feonious.
.. mat although the requistion itself certifes
the copy OF the indictment to be authentic tbern Is
no separate certificate to that effect or the copv
itself " ~ ''P1
A. That the petitioner is a citizen and resident of
Maryland, and not fugitive here-and
b. That the issuing of the warrant was irreouIar
because the Governor did not first file the reonisi
ton IN the State Department, and because the Gov
ernor sent it up to the Secretary of State TO be
hlIed up, without retaining a copy of it.
ghe counsel of the State of Mississnni contondo5
that the Governors warrant is regular ON its fara
stating fully all that it should properv state and
containing evidence OF all the authority necessary
to Justtyfts being issGed. They further contended
that the requisiton is in full accordance with Tho
provisions of the act of Congress and that II sets
forth crime committed, and Indictment found. and
light from justice, all duly evidenced to the Gov
eIfor OF Maryland. In addition, they argued that
the requlsltion being regular, and the tJroof at
tached to 1t abundant, and both having been for
warded by the petitioner the Court is in possession
OF the sufficient authority under which Gov Hicks
acseu' even II ms warrant We're defective in setting
1t forth, which was denied
AS to the irregularity of the Governors action.
lWlth which it was argued, the Court had nothing
to do,l the Constitution and the Act of 1888. ch
446; were referred to, to show that the Governor
was under no obligation to file the reouisition bn
fore issuing his warrant that the Secretarvof State
was not bound to record the requsition and that
hoprVate person is entitled, without the Governors
authority, to inspect the Executive archives or
have copy therefrom. 1t was denied that The
warrant was issued in blank, or indeed issued at ALL
I'LL duly filled up and countersigned by the Secre-
lary, and that the whole proceeding had been in
accordance with common usage in such cases
The objections of the petitioner were argued to
De purely technical affecting no matter either of
substance or substantial form; and to deny the
right OF sister State to the surrender of a fnri
i've on such grounds, it was insisted, would be
bad faith on the part of the authorities of Mary
land, and contempt of the States constitutional
4bligations. Several decisions of the Supreme
Courts OF various States were cited in the course
OF the argument, to establish the position-which
the counsel of the State of Mississippi contended
iCr-that although the duty of the Governor of
Maryland was made obligatory, under the Const
he had, nevertheless, the right to do so indepen-
IDENTIFY OF both upon received principles of public
law; and that, therefore, if Governor Hicks war
rant were irregular under the legislation referred
10 IL might be sustained on these principles with
out recurring to such legislation.
=, Ar; Schley was replying to these views, when
the Court adjourned.
Nothing done in the other Courts