National Republican., 1877-11-26
The Case of Senator Patterson.

The Case OF Senator Patterson.
The Equity Court chamber was crowded
last Saturday night with an Intelligent audience,
desirous OF hearing the argument Of AtorncyGon-
eral COnnoes, of South Carolina, made before
Justice Humphreys, the closing argument In the
hearing was the hc5eds corpus in the case OF scna.
tor John j. Patterson
He opened by remarhing that whatever might
be said concerning the impetuosty of counsel, 1t
was a satisfaction to know that It could not fairly
be applied In this case. The counsel OH the op-
posite side had travelled over wide range Of argu
meut, and closed from sheer exhaustion not satis
fed. However appropriae In debate or on the hui
irgs much tina, had been spoken could have no
place In court for this was case that came alone
under the Constitution. and the law and politics
had no standing with H.
References had been made to the attack on Fort
Sumter secession, rebellion. war, and what not
that might be introduced Is CStrdneOus matter and
while they properly had no place before that judi
Cial tribunal still they served as peg on which to
hang words OF elCqucncC: but beyond that could
not effect the Judgment Of the court They had no
place there, mud he would neither consider nor reply
to them. He would not show that dlsrcspcCt 10 the
court tn think 1t could DC swervcd in Its course by
such influence. In the outset he wished to strip
the case Of that great Importance that the counsel
has Slrven 10 throw about il. They had called 1t
an anomaly. 1t was
THE SIMPLE OLD PROCESS
OF securing q criminal fleeing from Justice under
the act OF l7gS, which had been administered
throughout the United States from that time up to
| the present without doubt without question, and
this was the first time that there had been an at
tempt tO throw slur upon it, II was true that this
was the first time that Senator Of the United
States tried to cUthe himself with the shield of
hReH corpus to protect him from Gr est. Was the
State Of South Carolina responsible for thatH As
the law stands there Is respecting OF persons be-
fore the bar OF justice, and the accused must take
his stand before that bar just as well as the hum
bie,t individual. and be Judged BY the law and
The question presented in the case wa, whether
OF not John J., Patterson was entitled to his liberty
he h,l lSnh aFpA mo- h. mi 81
remanded 70 the custody of tho state of South
Carolina. That was the only and whole question
for consideration He did not assume any such po-
sIton that inquiry could not be made into the writ
and examination Of the commitment When the
warrant was made: then came the question, What
| was the court to examine into, and how far could
that inquiry go? The distinction between this case
and the many that had been cited was that they
court, @ but ,S!, % was not not and undeS he coHs,intion
and act Of 1898 is plainly ind expressly stated
what shall be done The writ was simply Judi.
cal process being executed. 1t had been said that
THE PAPERS WE'RE DEFECTIVE.
lie challenged the opposing counsel To point out
In the warrant Of arrest Que flaw or word not In
conformity with the requirements of the act OF
l7e3 There was copy OF the indictment rccItng
the requlsitIon. All this had been done. and moth
ing remained but to order the fugitive into the Gus
tody of the agent of the State of South Carolina
| The second branch Of the case was the objection
made that Senator Patterson was not a fugitive
from Justice and the paper, were in that respect
that the relator had officially been notified OF the
existence of the Indictments aud warrant and in
Ss Ge asSSa 70 srSn% SGs to NE
of ihe eases cited On The other Side
fore these authorities did not apply under the act
Of 1903. In the Haghts case Chief Justice Cartier
declined to issue warrant not being satisfied that
the party sought was q fugitive: but as he had
issued his warrant in the present case, the infer
enCe on that point 50 far as the Chief Justice wa
concerned, was In their favor. In the case o
whitney Of California, the question rested OIL
Identity entirely so that none Of them could fairly
be made applicable in the present hearing. He
be a fugitive but denied that the charge mus
precede the fleeing for, were that doctrine true,
JUSTICE COULD ETERNALLY BE BAFFLED
by criminals who, committing their crimes and es
Gaping beyond the borders OF the State ere III,
charge was made, would be scot free. lie main
tanned that the relators Senatorial position shoulC
not stand as bar TO the operation of the requisi
treason felony. or breach of the peace, and the!
should be made To answer rs well as those In th'
humber walks Of life. In regard TO the statemcn
that he could not have fair trial and that this wa
, political prosecution, there was nothing to sup
port that charge but the relators afidavlt and !
weight was to be given 10 that without additional
Subsan.aton then he would never be tried in soutl
Carolina or elsewhere. for whenever arrested th'
= same atrdaylt could procure his release. Th'
State Is now endeavOrlng % obtain one Of Its ctl
zens for trial on grave charges and the constitu
ton and the laws guarantee that 1t shall be fail an'
impartial. They were entitled 10 Tie order re
mandng the prisoner To the custody Of the agent 0
the State 10 be carried to South Carolina 10 stant
this trial
NO DECISION YET.
His Honor said that he had given a pAtien
hearing to the cause but could not decide 1t tina
night. The arguments of the counsel had bee
able numerous authorities had been cited, and h
desired 10 take time to consider them. The relate
was under recognizance to appear, SO that he wou
be present when required lie understood tn
Attorney General OF South Carolina to state tha
he must leave for home at two o'clock the mex
l. LIZ l-.- .l.aIL IL.