The Cadiz Democratic sentinel. [volume] (Cadiz, Ohio) 1854-1864, 1860-04-04
TERMS--$2,OO


done where the requlsition is based upon an in.
dictment. If he is not found in the State Of
which he is demanded, that is evidence of the
tact that be has not fed there. II he be found
the Constitution implies the fleeing, and he is to
be delivered up. To show that it is not usual
to require evidence to establish this fact whers
the requsition is based upon Indictment It Is
only necessary to refer to demand on this
State, made by Gov Dennison himself within
the last month 1t is conclusive on this poin
That document accompanies this communca.
ton.
On the tenth day Of February last received
a communication from one of the Justices of
the county OF Warren, informing me that he
had committed Silas Taylor to Jail, under q
charge othaving committed forgery in the State
o: Ohio. A law of this State, in the true sriris
of comfy between sister States, having made Il
he duty of the Executive to communicate ths
information had received to the Executive Of
the State where the crime is charged to have
been committed, directed the Secretary of the
Commonwealth to give the necessary inierma.
tion. 1t was done, and in short time reeeiy.
ed communication from Gov. Dennison stating
that he had received the letter, but asking.
will you oblige me by communicating at your
earliest convenience in what county in Ohio.
Taylor stands charged with forgery. This
will enable me to communicate with the Pros.
ecuting Attorney, &C., by which to procure the
proper papers for requistion. If you do not
know the county, please send any other fhSor.
nation chat will enable me to act in the preini-
ses." Instead of refusing to give the aid desir.
ed, the Secretary OF the Commonwealth imme.
diately wrote to the Justice in Warren, who
had committed the accused to Jail, to give the
Governor Of Ohio the information desired. And
on the 25th Of February / received requistion
from Gov. Dennison, demanding the arrest and
surrender of Silas Taylor. '4r,q.
This requlsition is based upon an Indictment
which like the indictment in the case of Merr;.
am, has not one word init from beginning to end,
showing that Taylor had fed from justice, or
had been fugitive from justice, and not scin.f
tilla ofevidence, either by affidavit or otherwise
to show that he was fugitive. The only diff
ference between the two requisitions is that the
Governor of Ohio in his requsition says "and il
has been represented that Silas Taylor fled from
the justice of this State,' without saving to
whom it had been represented, or when and
how it hau been represented and without proof
to establish IL. The requisiton of this State
demands the surrender of Miriam "as fugitive
rNr inc in fxxyith Of kkokI L.
tive from justice.
What did the Executive of Virginia do under
these circumstances. Did he refuse to deliver
up the fugitive because he was not proved to be
a fugitive, or because the indictment did not as
sert that he was fugitive? No. BELIEVING
that sister State would not demand crimi.
nal for trial, unless convinced that he had viola
ted her laws, and willing to trust that criminal
to the jurisdiction, in which the offence was
charged to have been committed, | Immediate
ly issued my warrant to surrender the criminal
asked for, and he was delivered I'D to the agent
of Ohio. Comfy and good fellowship between
between States living in fraternal concord. under
the same Union and Government Gas tloupht>
required this Of me.
What does the Governor OF Ohio do in casa
infinitely stronger-in case in which it has
been published to the worlo that Virginia had
been invaded by a set cf desperadoes, who were
engaged in numbering her unoffendlng citizens
and in desecrating her soil in which the names
OF the offenders have been established, and are.
ward has been offered for them as men who
have He'd from justice, who are known to be
guilty beyond the possibility of doubt? He
cooly sits down and submits requisition for
these offenders, which is issued in the usual
form, to the acuteness of his ATTORNEY General
to pick flaws, and search for informalities and
defects, to give color of reason to deny the
so that the offender may escape be.
fore the defect if it be de feet can be remedi
ed. And, before information is given to me of
any defect, find it telegraphed to the world
that my requsition has been refused. And. I
I'm told, whether this defect can be cured is a
question which addresses itself solely to the
of Virginia l should feel that the
State of Virginia would be humiliated if I
should attempt it after objections like these.
md after the course she has pursued to the
State of Ohio in similar cases.
But, Sd. The Attorney General of Ohio oh.
ects, that "there is nothing to show that Mer-
lam ever was in the State of Virginia. save the
allegation in the indictment that the offence of
which he is accused was there committed ~.
The first objection was, that there was not one
word in the indictment to show that Merriam
1ad fled from justice; and now the objection is.
hat the allegation that he was ever in viz
slnia is found nowhere save in the indictment.
Where else should it be found2 The act of I
congress provides that the fugityes are to be de-
nandei on the certified copy OF an Indictment
because the indictment sets forth tho offence
orinaly- In this case it is expressly stated in
he Indictment that said Francis Merriam. 5s
'eing free person, on the 10th and 18th
lays of the month of October, in the year 1859.
n the cou1ty Of Jefferson and Con monweath
If Virsinia, an within tho jurisdiction Of this :
ourt,p did commit the offence with which he
vas charged. What language could be used to (
express the thought more fully or explicitly?
The Attorney General further says: 1.-THE
leceSsity OF insisting upon rigid proofof fight 1
will not be doubte l by any one fat iliar with
he fact that in some OF the States practice
las grown up of demanding the surrender as
ugit!ves from justice rom those States of per-
ons who have never been within their limits,
N the legal fiction Of a constructive presence
nd constructive fight. 1t is not kne wn that
his practice has obtained in Virginia, nor IS It
Material to inquire as all acquisitions from
State must be governed by an uni
orm law" II such practice has prevailed in
ny OF the States cf the Union, the Attorney
ieneral should have exposed such States
heir names should have been given to the coun-
y, He does not kro v that such ''practice has
b a ned IN virginia" Then why intimate
Il h a charge? Was it llhe deliberate purpose
t the Attorney General Of Ohio, to add insult
! outrages? Did the Governor Of Ohio intend
, give his endorsement to the insult so gratu-
ously offered by his Attorney General? This :
nj ha nf ha tate nfU