National Republican., 1880-10-28
THE PERRY CASE.
Judge Wilson Holds That the Requisitlon Is
Dsfeciive--Proceodings Before Chief-Jus-
tics Cartter

bohufo Initi-Juh-
tice Cartier.
The case Of Samuel L. Perry. charged with
uttcring forged school order for S45 in tho
name Of the school trustees Of Lenoir county,
N. g.. to the benefit Of Aaron Perry. aud do.
| manded from the District Of Colu nbia on a
rcqnisition from the governor Of North Caro-.
| lima, came before Chicf.Justice Cartier, sit.
| thug in chambers, yesterday at noon. Mossrs.
r. T. Mcrrick aud K, s. Davis appeared for
| the state aud MCssts. Shclabargcr and Wilson
| aud Professor r. r. Greoncr for Perry. After
a preliminary discussion MS to the manner OF
proceeding Mr.. Davis reed the indictment
| and sections Of tho revised statutes bearing
| upon the points ut issue He assorted that a
requisiton. accompanied by u copy of an in.
| dctment or an affidavit made before a mlgis.
| trate was conclusive In its terms and that tho
chicfjustice, under existing circumstances,
| occupied the position of an executive, bis
| functions to that extent being cocqual with
| that official.
His honor inquired If Il was not his duty to
discover whether or not crime had been
committed.
Mr.. MerricS replied that the practice had
been that when an indictment accompanied a
| rcquistiou It was considered primd f1cis evi.
dcncc that crime had been committed.
His honor said that he believed It 10 be his
duty to inquire if crimo was charged and
he simply asked If an executive could inspect
an indictment for this purpose.
Mr.. Mcriick thought that the state was the
power TO determine that question.
Mr.. Davis believed that the seal of the state
was the binding power and precluded inquiry
beyond II.
Mr.. Wilson then commcnced the argument
10 behalf OF the accused. IIo said that the
foundation for the proceeding could be found
in the constitution of the United States, and
tho revised statutes followed substantially
the language of the constitution. 1t was IN.
disputable that man must be charged with
crime prior TO arrest The point has been
made by the other silo that. when such a
charge was made and the man was fugitive,
he must be delivered up when a requisi-
ton was produced for him. lie denied the
truth OF this assertion aud claimed that 1t
must First be shown that an oriense had been
committed. If the former was true, why
was an Indictment or affidavit required
IL tho rcQuisitOn was conclusive tho
other proceedings wore unnecessary. The
language Of tho section plainly showed
that inquiry should bo made. He saw the
signature Of Thomas J. Jarvis 70 the rcquisi-
tion, but nobody knew that was the signature
of tho governor, although he saw certificate
OF ihe secretary cf state in the lower left.
hand corner. lie said that there was no allie
CATION that this man was q fugitive from JUS
ticc.
Mr.. Merrick-we will put the sheriff on tho
stand, and lie will testify to that.
Mr. Wilson-Every subterfuge has been re-
sorted tn in order to get this man out Of the
District without due process of law.
Mr., Mcrricll-I deny that anything of the
kind has been done.
Mr.. Wilson, claim that It can bo proved
IL the door is opened to admit of IT, and we
will show that The officer has beUn attempting
| to get this man beyond the jurisdiction of the
court by subterlugc.
Mr.. MerIick-Wc are willing that all of
the facts shall come ont.
Mr. Wilson, am glad that the chance will
be given to show the truth of what We claim.
The clirf.iusIicc-We will 20 on with this
part OF the hearing that we have taken up.
sufficient for tho day is the evil thereof"
Mr. Wilson, proceeding with his argument,
maintained that the papers transmitted by
the executive Of North Caroliua were not
| authenticated in the manner and form re-
quired by the statute. lie pointed out dis.
cropauCies in the requsition aud accom- pany.
ing indictment, and said that it had not the
scmbance Of the requirements of the law.
For all the authorization the papers had
they might have been prepared in some cor.
| ner grocery in Lenoir county, North Carolina
as they failed TO show that they came through
any properly legitimate and authorized
channel. He cited the laws IF North Caro-.
ment must set forth who had been defrauded,
which this one failed to do.
His honor said that it was plain enough
the only question was whether or not that
was the form in which to make such inquiry.
There was not Il common law judge between
the lakes and the gulf who would not hold
that the name of tho victim Of fraud must
be set out in the indictment.
Mr.. Wilson went oil 10 say that tho indiCt-
ment failed to show that the accused had no
| authority TO draw the order or that he was
not clothed with any agency in it. To sup.
port this point he cited u decision of tho su.
premo court Of North Carolina. He
said it was evident that this indct.
ment would not hold good on trial,
and that being SO was Insufficient to warrant
arrest and transfer of the prisoner. The con.
stitution and statute required that man
should be charged with crime, aud he unhesi-
tatingly said that the papers sent here did
not charge Perry with any crime, and there
fore no ground existed warrauting the extra
dition asked for.
Reference was made to the Kimptou case,
found in the American Law Review, relative TO
extraditiOn, aud the speaker maintained that
the executive could exercise discretion, and
the constitution of the United States made il
imperative for him to look into such cases and
decide whether the requisiliou was made in
good faith ana for the honest purpose of try
ing the man, or that 1t WAS subterfuge TO
get the mau into the state and use him for
ulterior purposes. In tho case of Kimpton
the latter WAS found TO be tho fact, aud Massa.
chusctts delivered TO him the requisition OF
South Carolina and delivered Kimptom to the
agent Of the latter state. The case of Taylor
W. Taintor l0th Wallacc) was read 10 show
that II was not the absolute duty of tho gov.
ernor OF u state to deliver up man simply
because demand had been made for him on
4 rcqui,itiou.
Mr.. Wilson read from mum erous authorities
10 sustain the point raised by him that where
tho indictment was fatally defective the
rcquisiiOn should not be honored or the man
cAtradit,di that It WIS the duty of the exccu-
Tive who had TO deal with tho case 10 cx.
anime into it aud see that the party WAS not
improperly sent away for trial.
In summing up ho maintained that the
reqnistIon Was not properly authenticated,
that the certificate Of the clerk OF the supreme
court TO the indictment was not sufficient,
and II was not shown in any manner that ho
was the clerk Of the court that he repre-
sentcd himself to be.
Tie hearing WAS then adjourned until 10
o'clock this morning.