The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-09-28
THE GOVERNOR OF SOUTH CARROLL
Ma TO THE GOVERNOR OF MASS.
AUHUSETTG.

| the body of Hiram III. Kimpton, for whom
Gov. Hampton had made requisition that
he might be brought to trial for crimes COM
mitted in the State of South Carolina, is a
spirited and manly protest against q mon
strous violation of the comfy between the
States. involving an absolute disregard Of the
rights of sovereign State.
It may be remembered that when Gov.
Hampton's rcquisition reached Massachu-
setts, Gov, Rice Immediately determined to
protect the fugitive Kimpton, and set his At
torney General to work to find q precedent for
refusing to surrender him. in violation Of the
express commandment OF the constitution of
the United States. Like, the wise Mussulman,
who refused to inform himself OF the relig-
ious tenets Of two rival sects lest he should
not be able to make up his mind which to
adopt the Governor Of Massachusetts, first
decided that Kimpton should not be delivered
up FOR political reasons. and then he instruct
ed his Attorney General to 70 fifty his position
with legal authorities. In this course. he
strictly followed the advice OF the old Mufti
to Anastasius-sa he: EFF you hear both
sides of any question you but increase the
trouble of reaching q conclusion. First make
up your opinion, and then, oil you have to do
Is to learn to maintainit.
After q careful consideration of the matter,
the Attorney General Of Massachusetts could
find no precedent, no authority for refusing
to deliver O person charged with crime, ION
demand OF the executive authority of the
State from which he fled" Yet, the failure
in this respect by no means turned Mr..
kimpton over to the tender mercies of the
South Carolina courts.
| There was nothing in the constitution, this
eminent authority discovered, which COM
PEELED the Governor Of one State to turn over
| to another a person charged with being 81
witness to the crimes OF others. This Attor-
ney General Of Massachusetts even went
further. and said that man charged with
crime need not be delivered up il he was to
be used as q witness, and the Governor, upon
whom the requisition was made, had O. right
to determine that question. In other words,
Gov. Rice, having refused to deliver person
charged with crime on the demand OF the
Governor Of South Carolina, his Attorney
General instructed him that he could sustain
his position only by assuming that Kimpton
was not demanded-though charged with
crime-as q refugee from justice, but as q
States witness. We believe that Gov. Rce's
legal adviser even found an ancient and
musty precedent, or rather instance, in
which Governor had manifested the same
assumedness and had refused to accede to q
renusition for criminal upon the same
ground.
This is Governor Rice's side Of the case. 1t
now becomes our duty to present the other
side. The simple question is: Had Governor
Rice any discretion in the matter
The best reply we can make to this que5-
ton is to copy the provisions of the
constitution of the United States in
regard to the demand for and de-
livery of fugitives from justice which regu-
late the comfy between the States In this
respect. Article 4, section 2, paragraph 2, of
the constitution reads as follows: ga person
charged in any State with treason felony or
other crime, who shall flee from justice, and
be found In another State. shall on demand Of
the executive authority Of the State from
which he fed be delivered up, to be removed
to the State having jurisdiction Of the
crime"
This commandment Is simple enough, and
can need no Interpretation, unless there be
some other provision of the constitution linz
iting the plain and palpable meaning Of this
most unequivocal provision. The only other
provision having the slightest connection with
this Is the assurance contained in the fifth
amendment that no person shall be deprived
of life, liberty or property without due process
oflaw." This Is Limitation, and Gov. Rice GER
tainIy had the right to inquire If the conditions
it lays down had been complied with. It was
his duty to say, II cannot deprive this man
of his liberty without due process of law
No man can be held to answer for a capital
or otherwise Infamous crime, unless on pre-
sentiment or indictment of a grand jury Has
Kimpton been so charged? II he has, then
am compelled to obey the plain mandate Of
the constitution and deliver him up on the
demand Of the executive authority Of the
State from which he fed"
This is wide and liberal Interpretation of
the constitution. It is placing upon the word
charged" limitation which we do not be-
leve the law iustifies. A man may be held
to answer for minor offenses In which an in
dictmeut grand itiff:y z4ett required, azd
yet he must be delivered over by the State in
which he has sought refuge to that whose
laws and majesty he has offended. The words
of the constitution are mandatory-"h shall
be delivered up" There is not q syllable sug-
gestive of the slightest discretion on the part
of the Governor of the State upon whom the
requisition is made. If the person demanded
is Charged" with crime, and "due pro-
cess Of law" has been issued for his ap-
prehension and delivery, the Governor Of
whom he is demanded has no option
whatever in the matter, and il he declines
to accede to the requisition he violates the
solemn commandment of the constitution and
offers a gratuitous indignity to the State
from which the demand may have come. In
assuming to construe the motives and pur-
poses for which such a formal demand has
been made he but adds insult to injury and
provokes and deserves the indignant resent
ment and rebuke Gov. Hampton has admins
tered in this instance. What right has the
Governor of Massachusetts to impugn the