Cleveland daily leader. [volume] ([Cleveland, Ohio]) 1865-1873, 1866-03-20
The Dunham Extradition Case.

been g1ven, by several Journals OF thIs
state, to the recent action of the Execu-
tive Of the state of Ohio in granting a
requisition made upon him by the de facto
Governor of Louisiana for the extradition
ofJohn W. Durham, a citizen of this state,
on charge of larceny. The facts in the
ease may briefly be stated as follows; In
the spring of 1869, Mr.. Durham, in COM
pany with others, leased from the Treas
ury Department, in accordance with exist
ing laws, a rebels plantation in Louisi-
ana, raised a small crop of cotton, made
the proper return to the Treasury Depart
ment, and returned to Ohio. Since the
close of the wal W. q. Harris, the former
owner of 1.-THE plantation, and a reconstruct
ed rebel, has regainsd possession, and in
February last made affidavit charging
Durham with larceny to the amount of
nearly half a million of dollars. On this
affidavit the acting Governor of Louisiana
made requisition upon Governor Cox for
the body of Durham. An attempt was
made to compromise the matter before the
document was put into the hands of the
Governor, but, Mr.. Durham having re-
fused the prefer, the requisition was pre-
scented at Columbus, and upon it the pri-
vate secretary of the Governor, in his alb
sence, filed out a blank warrant for the
arrest of Durham. The warrant was exc
euted, and at the same time another offer
to compromise the matter was made. This
was again defined. Mr.. Durham has
since escaped from custody, and the war
rant has been returned to the Executive
Office with the proper endorsement.
These are, in brief, the facts of the case.
In commenting upon them we desire to
remind our readers that the question
of Mr.. Dunhsm's probable guilt or
innocence is one with which Cover
nor Cox has nothing to do. In this
ease the facts leave little room for doubt
that the accused has not transgressed the
law; but it has been held in this State by
the best legal authority that the Governor
has no right to go behind a requisition
made in due form to inquire whether the
accused is or is not guilty.
The only question to be settled in the
case, then, Is as tothe legality of the requi-
sition itself-ss to whether the acting
Governor of a reconstructed rebel State is
to be recognized as hading authority to
make q requisition upon the Governor of
q loyal state for the extradition of a per
san charged with the violation of law.
Certain journals have taken the position
that the recognition of such requisition in
wolves the recognition of the legality ofthe
state organization, and have charged that
i hsI ssti8R st ea 8sk 4it GattssstEEi AaHGggtii Ess i9gitAlk is
ton of Congress on the entire question of
reconstruction 1t seems to US that the
reverse of this is the case. The United
States law in this matter applies
equally to the Governors of States and
of Territories, and whether LOUISE
ana be regarded as in either condition, the
warrant of its de faeto Governor is of
equal force. In recognizing il, our execu-
tive recognizes the government issuing it
as existing dc faeto and not necessarily de
jGrs. II any other policy were chosen, the
whole course Of the law in the lately re-
bellious states would be suspended, social
order would be ~grievously disturbed, and
chaos would come again. A murderer, q
robber, a burglar, escaping from a South
err State into the North could DEFY the
officers Of the law. By a parity
Of reasoning, a criminal fleeing from
the North into any Southern State
would be equally secure, for if there
is no officer in the South competent to is
sue q requisition there is none competent
to receive one. Any other course, there
fore, than that which has been taken,
would result not only in making the
North Al asylum for Southern criminals,
but the South an asylum for Northern ones.
Indeed the refusal to recognize the right
of q de faeto governor of q Southern State
to issue acquisitions fer the arrest of Grim
insls is in effect a refusal to recognize the
existence ofany court or judicial authority F.
whatever within the confines of the late
confederacy, On the other hand the re- {
eoguition Of the requisition as legal car
ries with it only the recognition of the /
government Of Louisiana as s de- aeto one,
and does not in the least forestaI the ac-
ton Of Congress in regard to its rightful
existence. 4
But it may be said, that if this argu- c
ment is followed out it would result in the s
Of Northern citizens to the
South to answer for offences against the i
Southern black code. We desire there 5
to explain that what we have said il
ihOuld be applied solely to the e~xtradition
IF offenders sgainst the common law.
Under internationallaw only such Offend v
bis are extradised, while political offenders, Il
1r those who have -transgressed any laws II
peculiar to nation or to e special state Of Ct
civilization, like the Southern slave and is
laws, are never given up. This is
'ught to be the rule regulating interstate ST
,xtradition. We do not know whether So
his is good law, but it is certainly good
ense.
Before leaving this subject we desire to
all attention to two or three facts which
and justify the position of the Il
Governor.
I. The precedent of recognizing such &C
equisitions is already clearly established. "
acquisitions from Tennessee were duly az
onored by Governors Brough and An ~
erson, and a requisition from Governor We
'rr, of South Carolina, upon Governor
OK was recently acted upon, the GRIMM m
arrested and finally returned to this rs
for trial. an
II. Governor Cox has taken the posi-
on that while be viii grant the r~equisi- du
ons of de fdcto Governors for all often ~
ers against the common law, he will not 90
up any charged with offences sh,
rowing out Of the wal, the recent "pecu-
ar institutions and special legislation of
South, OF the state of the country.
III. In regard to the particular case be
Mr.. Durham, having escaped ~
pm custody, and the warrant for his ar Lar