Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1879-01-30

Not Sufficient and Discharges crank
Burke's Counsel Attempt to Enter a Pro
test--Grand Finale to Slow Music.
The great Interstate affair between the COM
monwealth of Illinois and Minnesota reached
% seeming hnaity yesterday. In anticipation
Of the outcome, o large crowd assembled in
the district court to see and hear Judge Will
ktn's decision. To see it, more than to hear it;
to see how Frank would look if held; to see
how Burke would act if Frank were discharged.
The crowd got into possession of the court
room some half hour before the court came in.
Every seat was taken, and standing space was
at premium. Through this crowd, Deputy
Sheriff Harrison wedged an avenue, and
through it Judge Wilkin reached the bench
and without preface, delivered the following
decision:
Jud1e Wilkins Eecision,
In giving my decision in this matter Of the
State upon the relation of Samuel Frank
against james Fl. Burke, shall not enter into
any critical examination Of all the various an
thorities that have been produced before me-
nor into IN elaborate examination of the pyn-
ciples involved upon the questions which have
been raised. have examined the case, how
ever, carefully, and have arrived at the conclu-
sions which l am about to state.
The relator is in custody of the respondent
under warrant of the Governor of this State
issued upon a requistion of the Governor of
Illinois under the act Of Congress Of 1893, in
relation to the extraditiou Of fugitives from
Justice. That act provides in substance, that
whenever the executive authority of any State
shall demand. as fugitive from justice, any
person OF the executive of the State to
which he has fed, and shall produce
copy of the indictment or Of an affidavit
before a magistrate properly authenticated and
charging him with the commission of a crime
that it shall be the duty of the Governor of
the State to which the party has fed to cause
i.im to be arrested and delivered to the author
tiles Of the State by which the demand Is
made.
III this case the warrant which ia produced
here Is regular in form, and should be obliged
in the absence OF any other proceedings any
other papers to presume that it was au thorized
by the act of Congress to which I have re-
ferred, but the respondent has set forth in his
return here
ALL THE FACTS IN THE CASE,
80 that the proceedings upon which the Gov
ernor Of the State acted in granting this war
rant are before me. They form part Of the
record in this case, and the first question to be
considered is, whether the judicial authorities
OF this State IN case of this kind have right
to go beyond the executive warrant and inquire
into its validity and as to whether it is author.
ICED by the provisions Of the act of Congress
of '93.
] must confess that entered upon the inves-
tigation of this case with preconceived
opinion, that it was the right and the duty OF
the Judicial authorities of this State to take
cognizance of questions involving the personal
rights and liberties of citizens of this State,
except i'll cases where they are in custody OF
officers of the federal government or under
process issued by the federal courts.
1t is claimed in this case that the Governor
IN issuing his warrant acts under national au-
thority. 1t is undoubtedly true that he acts
by virtue of the constitution and the act Of
Congress of 1888, but he is
NEVERTHELESS STATE OFFICER
representing an independent State, and I see
no reason why his acts in that regard should
not be as much subject to the scrutiny Of the
Judicial authorities Of The State as in any other
case where he acts as representing the State as
its executive officer. The right Of State courts
to Investigate matters Of this kind, and TO
determine upon the validity of warrants
issued under similar circumstances by
the Governor of the Stale, has been frequently
exercised. l lind III the article by Judge
Cooley in the Princeton ReyieW, referred to by
the counsel upon the argument, that he as
suInes that
1T IS THE RIGHT OF THE COURTS TO INVESTIGATE
THESE MATTERS.
l conclude on hasty reading Of the articles
in the Albany La,y Journal, by Judge Spear
that that is his conclusion.
These, it is true, are not judicial opinions
but they are opinions expressed in the one case
by jurlst OF national reputation, and in the
other by gentleman who has brought emil
nent ability and learning to the discussion of
the question. But VIC are not without author
IN fha re H.
State upon the relation of Lawrence against
Brady, in the ffty-sixth New York report, it is
expressly decided that the courts have a right
to investigate these matters. have not for
gotten the criticism, which has been passed up
ON that case; that the counsel who represented
the State in that investigation did not see fit
to argue that point, but conceded it. But it is
nevertheless true that that court being the court
OF last resort in one of the most important States
OF this Union: and this being q case which was
elaborately considered and litigated for long
while IN the courts, expressed de-
cided opinion 10 the effect that it
was the right of courts to examine into the
validity OF the proceedings under which
the Governors warrant was issued. They state
that this right has been exercised and that the
exercise Of
THAT RIGHT IS JUSTIFIED BY REASON AND Au-
1HORITY.
have been referred to other authorities in
which different view seems to be taken In
Vermont case, (tbe case Of Goodenough,
thirk), the learned judge who decided that
case, lntlmated that it not in the power of
the courts TO go beyond the Governors war
rant, except for the purpose of establishing
the identity of the person arrested and he re-
ters to authorities from other States to the
same effect. l have not been able to see those
authorities, but in the absence of any author
lty that ia binding upon this court, in the alb
~
court, or Of any decision of the
United States courts upon this point feel
bound to follow that authority which is most
in accordance with my own sense Of what is
right and according to law.
1t was declared in magma charta that no free
man Should be punished or imprisoned unless
by the Judgment of his peers, or by the law of
the land. That principle has become engrefted
into the constitutions of all our States, and it
has become a part of the liberty Of this people,
The celebrated act of Charles 1, by which the
writ of haheas corpus was granted was mainly
for the purpose of
ENFORCING THE RIGHTS OF THE CITIZEN,
and protecting him as against the abuse
Of executive authority. 1t was de-
clared in that statute that no per-
son should be arrested or imprisoned by the
command OF the kings majesty in person, or
by writ Of the council, and that if SO arrested
he should have writ Of habeas corpus to be
brought before the courts of the realm, SO that
they might determine whether the commitment
was just. The principles of that act have been
followed in all the States of this Union, and it
Is now 1usti regarded as it was then, by the
people OF England, rs the great writ of liberty
think the right of courts to protect the per-
sonal liberties Of the citizen under. that writ
ought not t. be given up, unless in a case
where it is clearly authorized by the constitu-
ton and the laws. think. therefore, that it
is the
RIGHT OF THIS COURT TO GO BEHIND THE WAR
RANT
OF the Governor and to investigate the