Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1869-03-04


Earle reappeared before Judge Lee, Of
the Law Court. yesterday, at three p M,
on application for discharge on writ Of
habeas corpus. Judge Wright, Major
Beecher, Judge 7. W. Brown and Judge
PIERCE made arguments at length. The
defence made an able showing, and the
general opinion is that the prisoner will
be discharged this afternoon. The case
will! be resumed at three o'clock. As it ID
generally understood large number Of
similar acquisitions have been granted
by Governor Brownlow, this is looked
upon as q test case which may decide
many others; hence the intense interest
of the public, aside from sympathy with
an upright gentleman, hunted down by
bloodthirsty enemies. The points taken
by Judge Brown for the defense are
briefly as follows;
First. That the warrant of arrest
charged no crime defined by the laws of
Arkansas, the Executive Of which State
made the demand. The crime charged
was assassination" "or being access
sorry thereto" This was an accusation
that in lao expressed no crime or
offense, as described by the statutes of
that State or the common law. 1t was a
charge that the msrbid passions of polit-
ical hate might attribute to the utterance
of mere opinions, which diseased or
malignant fancy might assign as the
causes of subsequent violence. That in
the recent civil war nothing was more
common than for political antagonists to
call each other assassins" on account
of the supposed consequences that
flowed from the expression of obnoxious
opinions. The law had wisely presented
the language in which crimes were to be
charged, so that be who accused q citi-
zen, if his accusation was false and ma
licious, could not escape the penalties of
his falsehood.
The provision Of the Federal Constitu-
ton and statutes with reference to the ex-
tradition of fugitives from one State to
another-as also the statute of Tennes-
see-required that crime, as defined by
the laws of the State, demanding the
fugitive, be set forth in the warrant of
arrest, and unless this was done the war.
rant Of arrest was void and the prisoner
entitled to his discharge That reference
could not be made by courts to lexico-
graphers or literature for the definition
Of crimes.
Second. That IL 1t was for q moment
IL IL 1aE cd
any crime in law, the accusation failed
because no corpus deficit was alleged. 1t
was not charged that any person was as
sassinated, nor the time when nor the
place where the violence was done.
Third. 1t was not set forth in the war
rant of arrest that the supposed crime
was committed in Arkansas. The Gov
ernor Of Arkansas had no right to
demand, nor the Executive of Tennessee
to surrender, citizen or inhabitant of
this State on such demand, unless the
crime was charged to have been commit
ted in Arkansas.
Fourth. The warrant Of arrest 10 this
case did not show or Get forth BY whom
the affidavit waa made on which the Elk
ecutive Of Arkansas made the demand.
Fifth. The warrant of arrest did not
show that the Governor of Arkansas had
transmitted to the Governor OF Tennes-
see a copy of an affidavit or indictment
charging the prisoner judicialIy and be-
fore judicial officer with any cffense.
This was required by the act OF Congress,
as also by fair Interpretation of the
constitutional provisions relating to the
extradition of fugitives. The Governor
of the State had no right to order the ar
rest Of the prisoner unless this was done !
and he must show that it vas done in his
warrant Of arrest. Otherwise the Execu-
tive Of the State would be despotic, and
the writ Of habeas corpus a nullity.
Sixth, The return to the writ in this
case did not set forth the rtquisition Of
the Governor Of Arkansas on the State OF
Tennessee, nor on affidavit or indictment
against the prisoner, on which the former
made bis demand. Without these the
return showed no legal cause for deten-
ton of the pctitioner-th prisoner. The
authority exercised in this matter, both
by the demanding and the surrendering
executives, was special, and only TO be
exercised when the conditions prescribed
by the act existed. TherefoSs those con-
ditions must be shown to exist in order to
support warrant of arrest issued by a
Governor of State. There we're no in
tendment in favor of the exercise Of
special authority. All necessary to sup.
q. l. Al