The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1878-09-02

him. The boy, who Is eleven years old,
WIS picked UP by the crew Of a canal.boat
near by. The father was arrested, but WINS
subsequently, discharged.
The Kimpfon Requfsition.Case.
MASSACHUSETTS ATT0RSEY-GESERAL's ADJ
VICE TO THE GOVERNOR.
BOSTON, August Attorneys General
Train, OF Massachusetts, in his report to
Governor Rice upon the Kimpton reqsisi-
tion-case, transmitted report OF proceed
ings at the hearing. as q part OF his eommu-
nication for the guidance of Governor Rice,
as follows , It was claimed, on behalf OF
South Carolina, that the requisition COM
piled substantially and formally with the
provisions OF the Constitution OF the United
States (article 4, section p, and with the
statute of the United States (R. S. q. S.,
section 5,273). In aid thereof the requisi-
ton is accompanied by copy OF the indict-
ment against John j. Patterson, Miles &.
Parker, and Hiram 81. Kimpton, for crime
committed against the laws OF that state,
within the State, in March, 1872-whlch IN
dtctment was found in August, 1877; also,
an affidavit that Kimpton is fugitive from
justice OF that State and is within the limits OF
Massachusetts; and the papers are certified
by the Governor Of South Carolina to be
duly authenticated, and thereupon it was
claimed there was no discretion reposed in
YOUR Excellency, and that it was your i'm
perative duty to forthwith issue warrant
Of tradition and cause the respondent to
be delivered to the agent OF South Carolina.
Should adopt this doctrine and so advise
your Ezcellency must assume the statute
of Massachusetts, which has now been in
force for period OF Seyenty-hve years, In
aid of the provisions of the Constitution OF
the United States for the rendition Of fugi-
tiyes from iusrice to be unconstitutional
law. Many OF the States have no statute
upon the subject, while many OF them
have O statute substantially like our own;
and it is not improbable that the
statute BY the State upon the subject
is unnecessary. But shall not pre-
sumo to declare 80 ancient law as our
own to be unconstitutional, nor to disturb
the practice under 1t, which is now we'll
se.iled and thoroughly understood. The
authorities which are relied upon by the
learned counsel of South Carolina are entl-
tied to great consideration, but they are
controlled by more recent decision in the
case of Taylor Us. Taintor, 18th Wallace,
3G6, in which it is distinctly held that the
Executive of the State may exercise discrc-
ton in the rendition of q fugitive from
Justice. am bound by the law OF that
case, as we'll as by our statute. to inquire
and report whether the party whose rendl-
ton is required is held in custody, or is
under recogniZance to answer Tor any
offence against the laws Of this State,
or of the United States, OF by
force of any civil process; and it
is clear that il party is so held
the Executive may at his discretion de-
cline to comply with the rcquisition. 1t
is worthy OF remark that in none OF tee
cases cited was the question of Executive
discretion before the court, and Its discus
sion is incidental, so that the doctrine
claimed has never been iudclally decided.
The uniform practice OF yourself and your
predecessors, as far as l can ascertain, haS
been to exercise discretion in such cases,
not only as to matters specifically named in
the statute, but as to any matter which
might or ought to control the Judgment OF
the Executive. A familiar illustration is
to be found when Il rcquisitlon is made for
a party charged with crime OF obtaining
property by false prciences. 1t it manifest
that rendition is sought to enable the prose-
cutor tc collect debt, and not with intcn-
ton OF conyicting an alleged fugitive OF
crime with which be is charged, the uni
form practice has been not to comply with
reuuisition. So when an indictment has
not been sought or found for several years
after the alleged commission OF crime, I'M
less satisfactory reasons appeared for delay,
and when the offence charged is so trivial
in It's character that it would be perverson
OF this great power to put 1t in exercise,
and when it appears that requlsltlon has
been unprovidently issued, or that it is for
q purpose other and different from that
which appears upon its face, warrant OF
eytradition has always been denied. Illus
trations might be given Of the exercise OF
discretion by the Executive in this behalf,
but those already given are sufficient
for my purpose. AS l have already
said the practice has been uniform
since the passage OF the first statute
in the year 1901, and the practice III other
States OF the Union, as l am ADVISED, Is the
same. Upon the most careful consideration
which l am able to give the question pre-
scented / feel bound TO advise your Excel
Iency that chapter 1T OF General Statutes
is constitutional, and that it is your duty TO
exercise sound discretion in its adminlstra-
ton. In the present case lind, anu so re-
port to your EXcellency, that the requlsltlon
is in due form Of law. and that klmpton IS
not held in custody, or under recoSnlZance
lO stUSN I'll lol any t'3u'hSS Wv
of this State or the United States, or by
force of any civil process. Were this
tue whole Of the ease I should advise
your EXcelency that warrant OF cx-
tradition might property issue, but l
find, further, that the crime with winch
Kimpton stands charged was committed
in April, 1872, and that no attempt was
made to prosecute him or his co-defcnd-
ants until August, 1877; nor does it appear
that there is any present intention to try
them upon the indictment. 1t does appear
that for many months negotiations have
been going on between the authorities OF
South Carolina and this respondent, under
which he was offered immunity il he would
return to that State and volunteer rs wit
ness in her courts; and that this offer was
renewed after his arrest here. Upon all the
evidence, am Of opinion that the indict-
ment, when found, was for an Interior pur-
pose, which does not appear, and not for
the purpose OF trying, him for any sup
posed crime against the laws OF that State.
therefore advise your EXcellency that it
is not expedient to comply with the request.
Very respectfully your obedent servant,
CHARLES r. TRAIN.