The Cincinnati daily star. [volume] ([Cincinnati, Ohio]) 1875-1880, 1876-09-11

will doubtless overcome the eomlIy OF
nations, and he Will again make his
escape from prison in coach and four
horses.
-SsSN-
IMPORTANT JUDICIAL DECIsIoN.-An
important decision has just been pro-
nounced by Judge WEsTBRooK, in Su-
preme Court Chambers, New York,
bearing upon the law of hdbedS
cOrpuS and State eXtradition. A man
named Briscoe had been indicted
for fraud in the State of Georgia,
and while under bail to answer this
indictment he fed to New York. In
this latter State he was arrested in
civil action and held in confinement.
While thus held an application tor his
extradition to Georgia was issued by the
Governor of that State to the Governor
of New York. The Governor Of New
York issued his warrant tor the arrest
and delivery of Briscoe to the authori-
ties of Georgia. Upon this warrant
being served, the Sheriff of New York,
who held him in arrest under the laws
of his State. refused to surrender him
as directed by the warrant from the Gov
ernor of New York; and thereupon
writ of hd6eaS corpus was issued to the
Sheriff, commanding him to bring Bris-
eoe before Judge WEsTBRoOK OF the
Supreme Court for inquiry into the
cause of his detention.
,1 NIrGu M
that the provisions OF the Habeas Cor
pus act do not authorize the surrender
Of a person, held under civil process, to
the authorities of another State by eX-
tradition; and that Briscoe being de-
tanned under the laws of New York
could not be discharged until the de-
mands of those laws were fully satisfied.
The extradition was accordingly denied,
and the prisoner remanded to the Gus
tody of the Sheriff as holding him under
the laws of New York.
The interest of this case was increased
from the fact that counsel demanding
the extradition maintained that, as the
right TO extradition was prescribed by
the Constitution of the United States
and was enforced by the comfy OF
States, there was no alternative but to
surrender on proper demand Of extra.
dition; and that the right and propriety
of such extraditon having been once
determined by the Executive of State,
and his warrant issued therefor, the
Judgment and proceedings of Governor
in that behalf could not be reviewed by
the Judiciary. And in support of this
position the case of Nathan Ulman was
cited, wherein Governor TILDEN replied
to the court issuing certi0rdri directed
to him in these words:
81 deny with great respect the right OF the
Court TO issue said writ OF eertiOrari to me, or
to review directly my action in disChaCging the
duty imposed upon me by the Constitution of
the United States with respect to the surIen.
der of fugitiYes from justice"
But Judge WEsTBROOK said that this
position had been ''judieially over
THROWN" and further remarked:
ssWhile intending no disrespeet to the Gov
ernor of this Sttte, we should be constra lned to
assert the power and duby of the Court to ex-
anime and inquire into the cause OF the deten-
ton OF q prisoner, even though the warrant
which detaIns him is issued by the Governor OF
the State, as he claims under the power con-
ferred upon him by the national law.
Tue Executive Is not lnfail1bie, He may err,
and issue his warrant when he ought not to
issue it, and il the citizen has no right to pros
ecute this writ, but must submit to the Execu-
tive order, then it is clear that we have one Of
tlcer in a State organized under republican
form of Government who can hold at pleasure
and remove at his will beyond the jurisdiction
OF the State every citizen, and whose action can
not be questioned or reviewed. This is simple
Stntpmpnt the nlOnOS1flnn
would, we are certain, cause the present Exec
utiye as well as the Court to reject it as en-
trely unsound."
The Judge then proceeds, saying:
9We are now brought to the consideration
Of the remaining question, and that is, when a
party is detained in one State because the law
-Df that state have claims upon him, can such
person be extPadted and taken to another
State before the Justice of the State which
holds him has Iirst been satis1ed2 In other
words is the ght OF the State demanding the
alleged fugitive in order that he may be COM
pelled to answer to its laws superior to that
which holds him for similar purposeY Ii IL
Ia, then State comfy is above State SELF pres
efvatfop and the obligation Of man to his fel-
lows is superior to that which he owes to HIM
self There can be no middle grounds. . on IN tae
question before us. ulg bts tet
eral Constitution places places tbe Sae semamd snSi
above those of that upon when u Is
made. IL must then in every case pe ooeys9
brt if on the other hand the state Siilcil hoaua
rim is only bound to surrender when lts own
ia,as do NOT detain him, then in no case can ne
he delivered until the justice Of these laws mas mas
been satisfied. If the question had not 6eeh zen
decided, and. arguing from ne aaty Wv wniSh nitjl
rs eserS which must as a rule of conduct M for
its own guidance be paramount 70 N ne
duty which owes to apSshsT Ss ana lss Est
zens. W. WSopfU imnoses the duty Of surrender
O, tsnOn me laws OF the State upon which the de-
%Sod msod is is made have no claims upon the person