Cleveland daily leader. [volume] ([Cleveland, Ohio]) 1865-1873, 1866-04-04
The Durham EztradInon Case.

March rs, 1866.
To the Editor of the Cleveland LEADER:
In the LEADER of the 10th, you say
"Too much Importance has been given by
several journals to the recent action of
the Executive of Ohio in granting the
requisition by the dc facto Governor of
Louisiana for the ~extradition of Durham"
charged with larceny by a pardoned rebel
of 1862, forfarming his plantation in 1868,
under a lease from the Federal Govern
ment. The granting of such a requisition,
TO speak of it in the mildest terms, was an
egregious blunder, and a grave wrong to
a loyal citizen and, as a precedent would
destroy the sense Of security of every true
citizen-soldier and officer of this State,
who took part in putting down the rebel
lion during the war, in any of the rebel
States. For, surely, if a man can be sent
by the Governor, from his home in his
State to Louisiana, to be tried for larceny
before a secesh jury there, for an act in
1868, of farming lands under authority of
the United States, found bya jury of those
pardoned rebels to be larceny, conviction
might be expected from a like jury there.
And if SO, by the same precedent there
and here, any officer or soldier of any
battle fought n that State in 1863, if now
there indicted, BY The survivors, for slav-
ing any of their friends or associates in
battle, for murder committed in 1863
must necessarily be subject to a like extra
dition. 1t is by no means true that "the
only question to be settled is the legality
Of the requisition itself; II or that "Mr.
Dunham's probable guilt or innocence is
n with which Governor Cox has moth
ing to do" This law of comfy has
never rested upon any such technical
grounds. Many years ago a requisition
was made by a governor of one of the
Southern States upon the executive of
New York for the rendition of an editor
of New York City, indicted for commit
ting a felony within the Southern States,
al q particular time specified in the indict-
ment. MI. Williams, the accused, was
to show that he had not been within
The State and Governor Seward, to whom
he application was made, as General Cox
well knows, refused to grant an order for
MS e%xtradition; for the reason that he
not probably guilty of the fell
my charged, and was not a Fugitive
Justice" in the sense of the act of
Feb. u, 1893. And the best iurists and
of the country approved his
manly refusal. Tho felony, charged in
his case, 10 have been committed in 1863.
as every one knows, devastating war
PREVAILED in the State Of Louisiana, and
ong before the present "Gc fdcto's' office,
hould have excited the greatest vigilance
the part of the Governor, to ascertain
be true character Of the application. In
Iced, 1t is a w~ell-known rule in such appli-
that where the offense is not of
ecent occurrence, satisfactory evidence
aust be given for the delay, before the ap-
will be allowed. If a requisition
as been improperly or unadvisedly al
owed, it is the right and 6gty of the Gov
to ~inimediately naEs It if not al
eady executed. The position taken BY
Cox-to only allow acquisitions
lade by the dc faofoS, in the "Secesh"
tates, for offences against the common
aw-wm notprevent q like blunder in fu- {
Ire. Murder and arson, which a malig- 1
ant rebel jury might find a true CHARGE I
gainst soldiers and officers in 1868, as I
opposed, would both be fslonies at COM
ION Lai1. {
l trust we shall have no further occa- t
on, for an attempted excuse for sEch an c
Htradition case. s. t