The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1884-04-17
EXTRADITI0N.
TEXAS AND NORTHUMBERLAND
TO MENERY AND MENERY TO
IRELAND.
Ireland's Rejoinder-FuIl Cor
respOndence in the Clarke
Carroll Cases.
From the Severe to the Serene,
and All Ends Well, So Far.


the Clarke and Carroll extraditio
cases :
GOV. IRELAND'S LETTER.
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT,
State of Texas,
Austin, April l, 1884.
To his Excellency Samuel D. IcEnery, COVER
nor OF Louisiana, Baton Rouge, La.
SR-On the 18th day of March, 1884
/ issued requisition directed to you
excellency, requesting the return o
to this state, he being fugi
tive from justice.
On the 30th ultimo the requisitioI
was returned to this Office, bearing tn,
following remarkable Endorsement
Respectfully declined, as the of
Tense charged is unknown to the laws
of this state, and there is no affidavit
accompanying the application thai
the return of the fugitive is for the
purpose of substantial justice and not
for the purpose of holding him liable
in civil process to which he is
liable"
First-The fact that the offense
charged is not known to the criminal
laws of the state whose executive is
requested to surrender fugitive, Is
given as a reason for declining to SUI
render, is at least new and novel. It
was supposed necessary only to be
satisfied that the offense charged was
really an offenSe against the govern
ment and laws of the state making
the requisition.
Second-Your second reason for
your refusal is an impeachment of the
law officers, of the grand jury, of the
judge, who presided when the indlct-
ment was returned into court. and of
the executive of this state. Here Is a
requisition, accompanied by a duly
certified copy of the bill of indictment,
and yet your declination is based upon
the ground that this state and her
officials have not purged themselves
of and made proof Of an absence OF
possible disgraceful attempt to use
the criminal machinery of this and
sister state for the purpose
of collecting a debt, without the
slightest proof or fact tend
ing to show that these suspicious
are well founded. 1 am not aware Of
anything in the past history Of this
state that Justifies these suspicious or
your course in this matter. Laws may
be prostituted here as they are in all
civilization, but they have not and
will not he so prostituted by the con-
sent and connivance of the soveh-
ment itself. You had the undoubkd |
power, physically, to decline to ho1or
the requisition, but you had no Hhe
legal or moral right to so define
States, recognizing their commoDbbli-
cation to the federal union, are LEGALLY
on RI or f,1Ori
tives when legal demand is maze for
them. That you cannot be cOmOelled
to obey this legal and moral Oliga-
tion was enormously so decided in |
Kentucky VS.. Denison. 1t is rot an !
unreasonable supposition thu --Rpt 81
your excellency desired tlearn CT
whether the offense chargeh the CT
indictment was really legaparge, OF
that you could readily have do SO by in
reference TO the code of law,f this W
state. By turning to the revd stat W
utes of Texas, you could he seen tn
and readily found, by the I of an ii,
excellent index, at page 10of tE<ae4
criminal code of that book, q at A07,
that the offense charged wa.fei ony.
If you have not copy of olay Us, 1T
will afford me much pleasut1 fur
nish the state of Louisiana 18th a
volume. Why your excelle, Should
look through the code of Ld'$5iana to
ascertain whether the offensscharged
was one known to the lawS,f Louis
lana is not Observation-Disclosures that
question was solved in the one way or
the other could have no possible bear
ing on the question. 1t is let map
propriate to allude here TO atelegram
from your elcellency of date March
81, and sometime subsequent to your
action in the case here dis
cussed, telling me that there
was prisoner in Jail at Terrell,
in this state, for whom YOU had issued |
requisition on the governor Of Tex
as, and requesting me to order the
sheriff of Kaufman county to hold |
until your requisition reaches this
state. In answer, l wired you this
morning that, since your action in the |
main case here discussed, was not |
inclined to usurp extraordinary pow
ers. Under the laws and form of |
government, the goverIlor of Texas |
has no authority to "order" a sheriff |
to do anything. He mayrequest, and |
often does, but never To violate the |
laws. In your case, under different |
conditions, would have taken great |
pleasure in requestinga sheriff to go |
to the very verge of authority on your |
application, but 1 mush now be par
doned for declining, aud expressing |
my profound astonishInent and regret |
at the course you hav9Seen proper to
pursue.
1 am, sir, very RESPECTFULLY, your
obedient servant. q
JOHN IRELAND,
Govdnor of Texas.
GOV. M'ENERYs REPLY.
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, |
State of Louisiana,
BATON ROUGE, April 3, 1854 } |
To His Excellency, JohnIreland, Governor Of
SIR have the hpnor to acknowl-
edge the receipt of Jour letter of the
LIST inst. had pisviously received |
your dispatch relating to your action |
in the case of tle fugitive muir
derer, Clarke, who, FOR the purpose of |
robbery, assassinattd two aged people,
John G. Rogers and his wife, in the
parish of Ouachita
1t was with more regret than dis
pleasure that real the dispatch, and
not knowing the circumstances at
tending its transmission, had hoped
that in due tine an expression of
some regret woull follow it. would
take the same siew of your letter,
were there not embraced in it several
charges which ]. think are unwar-
rante0 Ind which require notice.
l. Carroll was charged with taking
out of the state of Texas mortgaged
personal property. This is no offense
or crime in thestate of Louisiana, and
in declining, If respectful terms, the
request, / obeyd the laws of Louisi.
ana. (Section l6l7, Revised Statutes
of Louisiana.)
2. With reference to the Endorsement
relative to holding him liable to
civil process, / will state that hadno
intention whatever of being disre-
spectful to your excellency, the grand
Jury who found the bill or the judge
who presided, any more than the gov
ernors of Ohio, New Hampshire,
West Virginia, Iowa, Massachusetts
and other ststes who have adopted
rules, either in their wise discretion or
In pursuance of statatutory provls-
ions, for the rendition of fugitives;
and among osher rules the one that
the "requisition is not sought for the
purposes Of collecting debt or salts
fying some private end, but solely in
furtherance OF public justice" Rule
2. state of Iowa; circular letter, John
Il. Jackson. governor of West Virgin
ia: rule 5. state of New Hampshire;
-