Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1884-08-21

| OH the supposition that he had no record
TO confront them, but they have ascer
tanned that he has great deal of record
and that the most of it is bad.
A characteristic chapter from Mr.
Cieveland's record includes his refusal
to surrender to the State of Iowa. on a
proper requisition, a fugitive from JUS
tice in that State, who had fled to New
York. On a second application, enforced
by legal argument on the subject, he
admitted his error and issued the proper
warrant, but, by an intrigue in providing
for its service, he secured the fugitive's
escape from arrest. The sinister fact ap-
pears in the case that the fugitive from
Iowa Justice had committed the crime
of seduction under promise of marriage,
and that the circumstances were of a
peculiarly aggravated character. The
scandals of the times sufficiently account
for the impulse under which Governor
Cleveland protected the absconding Iowa
criminal, instead of srrrendering him.
The name of the Iowa prisoner was
James Cosgrove. The complaint and
testimony against him were in regular
form. The fugitive was ascertalned to
be in Ithaca, in the state of New York.
Governor Sherman, of Iowa, issued his
requisitiOn on the governor of New
York, and placed it in the hands of the
sheriff of Washington county, Iowa,
where the crime was committed, to be
properly served. The constitution and
laws of the United States are plain.
The Federal constitution says that the
fugitive "shall be delivered up" The
Federal law described the manner in
which a requSitiOn shall be made, in
L. 81
shall be surrendered. These forms were
technically observed by the governor of
Iowa. but Governor Cleveland refused to
"deliver up" the criminal, giving the
following as his reasons:
1. The evidence does not show that he Is a
fugitive from justice.
;. There is not sufficient excuse for the delay in
presenting the application.
It does not appear whether the criminal is a
resident of the state or only transiently here
That these were mere pettifogging ex-
cuses to permit the fugitive to escape, is
apparent. The evidence did show that
he was a fugitive. Whether the appli-
cation was made Immediately or delayed
did not effect the obligation of Governor
Cleveland to surrender him. Whether
the criminal was transiently in New
York or had become a resident there,
made no difference in the case; if he had
fled justice in Iowa, and was found in
New York, the federal constitution and
law covered his case.
Governor Sherman was justly indig-
| nant at the refusal of Governor Cleve-
| land to obey the United States cOnstitu-
| ton and laws in regard to the surrender
| Of this fugitive, and made new demand
accompanied by an argument in which
| the laws and judicial decisions We're
abundartly cited. The laws and judi
| cial decisions of the state of New York
| were especially brought to Governor
Clevelands notice, and he was shown
| where he had violated the statutes which
| he had sworn to execute. He then re-
considered his previous action and issued
| the proper warrant. But, still deter
| mined that the criminal should escapes
| he refusd to place the warrant in the
hands of the Iowa sheriff, who had an
interest in seeing that it was served, and
| who was stimulated by a sense of official
duty. The warrant was placed in the
hands of New York sheriff, who neg
| lected to serve it, and, through criminal
| connivance, the Iowa fugitive was per
| mitted after all, to escape.
There is no injustice in the supposition
| that in this case a fellow feeling" made
Governor Cleveland wondrous kind, "
aud that his criminal sympathies led
| him to officially connive at the escape Of
fragrant offender against the civil law
and against morality and the peace and
| order of society.