Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1880-10-27
The Exodus Leader Perry.

To-day, In the room OF the Court in General
Term Chief Justice Cartier took up the case If
Samuel L. Perry, the colored messenger Of the
second auditors Office, arrested on Monday
| morning last on a bench warrant as q fu olive
| from justice in North Carolina where he Is
| charged with uttering forged school certi-
| fcare for SIS IL win be remembered that
| Tequfsjtion from Gov. Jarvis was brought here
| by the sheriff Of Leron county, in that state,
/ on Monday, on which Perry was arrested and
| that On Monday afternoon Judge Cartier post
| p0Ded the hearing until noon today. Messrs.
X T herrick and K. S. Davis was appointed
| Tor The state and Messrs. Shellaoarger, j. VII
son ard K. T. Greener for Perry.
Mr.. Davis opened the case by reading the In
GlcJfGent and tie sections of the Revised Stat
ntes authorizing The chief justice to act In such
acase as this SECTIONS 52,S and 5219.) He
| claimed that when a requisition is accompanied
| by copy OF an Indictment or an affidavit made
/ before magistrate it is conclusive; that the
cbief justice occupied the position Of an execu-
The Chief Justice asked If 1t was not his duty
| to know If crime bad been committed
MIR. Merrick said the practice was that when
| an indictment accompanies the requlsition L. Is
| pTfIna facie evidence that crime had been
| committed.
The CHIEF Justice said that he regarded If a,
MS oOty 10 inquire II q crime WAS Charged Gan,
tbe executive inspect the indictment for tl,
purpose?
Mr.. Merrick said that the state was the m yer
to determine II a crime had been comrnItseI
MI. Davis, continuing. said that the seal cf
the state was binding On every one concernef
Mr.. Merrlck said that the reqrifsition statas
| that Perry is charged with forgery, a crime
under the laws OF the state OF North Carolina.
Perry. ard Id the II u dalton for this proceed
ing was In the Consu ution of the United ates
aud the Revised Statutes follow substaatfalsy
those applicable to this District pro eide FIR h,
Chief Justice. 1t is apparent that the person
must be charged with crime The point made
mere mat when such charge Is made the fu r.
tive must be delivered, he denied and said that
II should be shown that the party has been
guilty OF an offence. Why the requirement il
Is conclusive? The very language OF the sec
lions imply that an inquiry should be made.
me statute requires that the Indictment or affi.
davit must be certified by the chief magistrate.
&c. and he claimed that in this respect an in
quiry should &c made. He read the requistfon
and the signature of Thomas J Jarvis, and said
signature, although on the left hand corner ia
the certificate of the secretary of state.
Mr.. Merrick.-What is that which gltters
there? (po1nt1ng to the seal
MI. Davis.-Who is the governor OF Michigan?
Mr.. Wilson, don't know; have not been In
politics as much as my friend has in the last
few weeks.
Mr.. Wilson said that there was no allegation
that he was fugitive from justice.
Mr.. Merrtck said that they could put the
sherlH on the stand, who would testify on this
point.
Mr. Wllson.-And when that door is open we
VIII show that the officer has been attempting
court Dy mean subterfuges.
The Court.-Suf1icient for the day is the evil
thereof.
Mr. Wilson continued, claiming that the law
was not complied with, as the certificate was
not that the Indictment was authentic He then
read the Indictment, closing with the words "a
IL does not say Indictment and. for all the
court Knows, the paper may have been written
al some corner grocery. II is not enough to
say that he has committed crime, BAT to
charge him. He read from Battel's Revised
Laws OF North Carolina, sections IS, 50 and 60
which require that ii shall be charged who was
defrauded, and he claimed that this Indictment
stopped with the word ''defraud,7 not stating
who 1t was attempted to defraud
The Court said there was not q common law
Judge from the lakes TO the gulf, who would
sustain an Indictment which LETT oat the victim
OF the fraud.
Mr.. Wtlaon claimed that there was moth
ing to show that the parties named had any
connection with the school fund The constftu-
ton and statute requires that the party must
be cbargd With crime, but there Is an utter
absence OF averments. and he claimed that IL
amounted TO nothing. ON the point that the
Court cannot look Behind the seal OF the state
he referred TO the kimpton case. reported In the
American Lar Rer}P'r for ISTS-I9. as showing
that the law recognized the right of tue execQ.
tive TO look into the papers and inquire whether
the reQl1s1f1on was made In good faith whether
1t was not a subterfuge. IL this case they made
the inquiry and found that they wanted the
party for different purpose and the governor
OF massachusetts, refused is surrender him. He
ltou HUH tue Cast Vi 1dyIOT dgt. Jal1tOf (I6Cl
Waliace], that Ii is not an absolute duty OF The
executive TO surrender the party. The Court
remarked that Seward HAD refused to .oluf d
rquisttion from Virginia, holding that the
offeDse alleged-stealing siaves-was no. lcli
a crime as was contemplated by The c1ustitu
ton.
Mr.. Merrick said the Laws OF North Carolina
were similar TO the English law. and DID nc.
require the name OF the person attempte1 10 D.
sefrauded TO be ser out, and he read from tae
same volume read by Mr.. Wilson. (Bi;teis
Mr.. wilson said that there was no doub. BIZ
that under habeas corpus proceedings an il
curry could be made into the papers, and IL this
is SO he could not see why the executive could
Jos. smith.
Mr.. Wilson read also the case OF Buell. Uar
libel On senator Chandler reported In Sd Dill
Ion, as showing that when the indictment is
fatally defective the party should not be sur
rendered.
The Chief Justice sale this doctrine had been
held again and again here on habeas corpus.
MI Merr1ck asked II In the case quoted il was
not under the jurisdiction of the United States
the indictment was found. and whether IL was
not very Inherent case from party indicted
under state?
Judge Cartier said that this was all United
States machinery. That they had he'd again
and again on haDeaS corpus the doctrine quoted.
Here, however, he was acting as an executive.
Mr. Wilson said that the Buell. case showed
that an act OF Congress authorized a commits
sioner TO commit man, and district Judge to
issue his warrant and the marshal to execute if.
principle, and that was that 1t was the duty
OF tie executive to examine the papers to see IL
there was proper predicate to the reuuiSition.
Judge Cartier said he understood that the
executive did not certify TO the Indictment
being authentic nor does the clerk so certify
Mr.. Wilson read sections Of the statute re:
lating to attestation OF papers.
The hearing was then continued until TO-
morrow morning.
When the case was taken up at noon there
we're loss than dozen persons present; but as
tha ar-rr. nrogl essed many members OF the
bar and others, ipvssIIdiag the colored ca;;et
Whitaker cane in.
TRIAL TRIP OF THE STEAMER EyCgIsIoR.-A
tI1al trip to Quantico OF the new steamer Excel
sior OF the Potomac steamboat company's line
Which Is TO be used In transfer.
ring soUthern-bound passengers TO the
Richmond. Fredericksburg & Potomac rail-
road connection at that point, was mad.
yesterday. pleasant party went down
on her, comprising several Of the leading buS-
ness men Of the District and their families.
Reed and ladies'. E. kurtz johnson and wife, j.
Harrison Johnson and wife, A. II. Stephenson
j. w. B0teler, Frank Hume James X. Cieary
j. w. Mcknight, w. Ii. CIagett, Thomas l.
Hume. E g. Wheeler Henry Knight Wife and
daughters, John Van RiSwick. j. K. Sharp OF
the Baltimore Potomac railroad COMPANY E
Droop. L. g. Hine, General T. T. Bacon Benia-
min F. Lloyd, Thomas Young. j. T. Dyer. john