Public ledger. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1865-1893, 1869-08-26

tsaf I'll -
From the New York World
SUPERIOR COURT - SPECIAL TKRN. - Before
Judge McCunn.
In re. George r. Rutter. The final
hearing upon the writ Of habeas corpus
in this case took place yesterday. Messrs.
Charles Sanford and Roger A. Pryor ap.
peared for the relator, Mr.. Hyatt for +.
s. Davis, President Of the First National
Bank, of Tennessee, who is the principal
prosecutor. and Assistant District Attor-
ney Blunt for the respondent.
The case having been called, Mr.. San
ford said that it came mp upon q return
made TO the writ of habeas corpus issued
to the Superintendent Of Police Of this
city 10 produce the body of George X.
Rntter, alleged 10 be illegally confined
by him. That return consisted simply OF
areouisition under the seai of the State
of Tennessee, and issued BY the Governor
of that gtate, addressed to Governor
Hoffman, requesting him to deliver But
ter for extradition. Annexed to that re-
turn was also an affidavit made by one OF
the attorneys here of certain gentleman
in Tennessee, who, upon the arrest Of
Butter there, became his boBdsman in
the suu of $1,000 The affidavit was
made here By the attorney residing here,
upon his information and belief derived
from telegraphic dispatches received
from Mr.. Davis in Tennessee. But the
only ground on which it was pretended
In the return that the prisoner could be
detained ~ss upon the requisition OF
the Governor of feansseep addressed
10 Governor Hoffman. He had Leen
arrested here by the Superinten-
deaf Of Police, without process,
and was held simply by the arbitrary
action Of the superintendent, ACTING by.a
certain Gently at the request OF certain
Tennessee officials, telegraphed to him
by the Sheriff of Memphis, Tenn. Now,
In Determining the validity of this pro-
eess-=;f counsel could call it process
il was Nc process = in determining
whether IL constituted sumciept ground
for the detention Of the prisoner. he voald
cali his Honor's attention to the act OF
Congress which governs oil these pro-
ceedlngs, And here he weuld remark
that the question whether or not an offense
had been committed by tbs pgisaper in
the State of Tennessee was not in issue
before his Honor-that was not the ques,,
ton. The only question on all writs OF
habsas corpus Wss Whether the prisoner
was illegally beld in dHress sn9 IN de-
that question this act Of Con-
gress was OF the utmost Importance,
because all the proceedings, 90 respected
and extradltions of persons
with crime by the Governor OF
the State upon whom the reqnisition was
made. depends solely and exclusively
upou that act Mr.. Sanford then read
the act providing that the Governor OF
one State demanding the return Of o
fugitive from justice in another State, he
sball. in addition to making a requisition,
produce = copy Of the indictment found,
or the aliidayit made before magistrate.
There was, by virlne OF this statute, Mr..
Sanford szid, certain prerequisites 70 the
exercise by the executive authority OF
this State of bis power TO cause the return
Of the alleged fugitive from Justice. These
were, first, demand by the Executive OF
the State from whence the prisoner is
alleged to have fed; and that demand
must be supported by competent
proof, and the act Of Congress
has prescribed In express terms what
that proof should be, namely. a copy OF
the Indictment. or Of the affidavit made
before the committing magistrate in
Tennessee on which the warrant for his
arrest was originally granted, and such
warrant must be authenticated by the
certificate OF the Governor Of the State.
If such papers we're not prOdgoed here,
and there was no pretence that they were,
there being only the commitment, unsup-
ported not only by the evidence required
BY the act, but unsupported BY any evi-
dsnce whatever. The telegrsphic dis
patches, be commended. and the affidavit
fou nded on them, we're waste paper, so
far Is any weight a. legal evidence was
concerned. t
Judge Mccunn-I supposed that this
affidavit was made BY some one in Ten
nessee.
Mr.. Sanford-It was made BY the At
torney here. / say, therefore, that il,
upon the mere demand Of the Governor
Of Tennessee, Governor Hoffman should
Inadvertently or precipitately grant his
warrant for the return Of the prisoner. 1t
would be the duty Of your Honor TO re-
view his action and Determine whether
he had issued his warrant Inadvertently.
But there was no such question before the
court. The court had before It simply a
demand upon Governor Hoffman BY the
Governor Of Tennessee fos the return Of
the prisoner. Counse! submitted that in
view Of the act Of Congress there vss no
place for argument lie thez read from
ex pdrfe Fountain in the B;h Texas Re-
ports, where q rsquisition was made by
the Governor OF illinois upon the Gov
ernor Of Texas for the rsiurn Of one Of
the Mormon rioters, and it Was
held that, though be affidavit upon
which the warrauf9 Twas issued APP
peared, daily aulhealinaied, yet beeanae