Iron County register. [volume] (Ironton, Iron County, Mo.) 1867-1965, 1886-03-25
IRONTON MO- THURSDAY MARCH x5. 1886.
NUMBER 81,

encouragement with Congress, which
could not be induced. even by the Dis
trict Attorneys visit aud appeal, to
outrage common sense aud common
justice. And so he again failed.
This third failure might by him and
the public have been considered-il
any demand of Justice, or any pressure
from or of public opinion, was urging
the District Attorney on-that he had
done all and more too. than his official
duty demanded, and that he could be
amenable to no just criticism or COM
plaint, and he could have honorably
rested, after having vainly appealed
to the U. S. Grand Jury. to the Sec
relary of the Interior. and to Congress.
Such persistency and purpose to de-
tect and furnish supposed or actual
fraud against the Government, has no
parallel in the records of that Office,
nor parallel or pursuit in the State or
local courts.
Not satisfied with exhausting the
authority of his own courts, and of the
Interior Department and of Congress,
the U. S. District Attorney sought the
State Courts, and through the Grand
Jury at st. Louis in and for the May
term, 1881, did, through the aid of his
detective, pat d. 7yrrelD and the
expenditure of large sums of the mon
les Of the United States, secure the in
dictment of Robert l.. Lindsay. a na-
rive born citizen, then and since 1856,
of the State of Missouri, and almost
continuously of the town of Ironton,
and County of Iron, in said Stase, as is
personally, to several of us his neigh
bors, well and indisputably known.
Upon process issued by said State
Court of this State, Robert L. Lindsay
responded and gave bail approved by
said court, for his appearance, and
thereby placed himself in the custody
of the State Courts, and ready to re-
spond for trial. which he was not per-
mitted to do, but upon some pretense
he was summoned to st. Louis Four
Courts, and kidnapped and hurried
off to Ohio upon false affidavits, and
upon Extradition papers, secured as
Governor Crittenden does not hesitate
to say, and so said in writing of the
date of September 5th, 1883, wherein
in communication to the Executive
of Ohio, he says: II was deceived at
the time the warrant was sought and
delivered upon your requisition for his
delivery to your agent. Of course you
had nothing to do with that" And a
still later letter of similar import to
Gov. Hoadiy, both on file in the Ex-
ecutive Department. And SO, without
opportunity to confer with his friends
or chance to appeal to the protection of
the law, he was forcibly conveyed out
of the State and to the State of Ohio;
where, distant from home and without
friends or the necessary means to de-
fend himself, and placed at such inten-
tionai disadvantage in State he had
never lived in, nor had any technical
nor purposed residence in the State of
Ohio, nor had he ever been within its
boundaries, he was forced to prison
and trial, and thus under the Revised
Statutes, Sec. 527S, illegally deprived
of his liberty and treated, wrongfully;
treated as fugitive from justice of the
State of Ohio, wherein be never had
resided, actually nor constructively,
and in violation of the decisions of the
United States District Court of the
State of Missouri-Judge Krekle-in
the James case: "a prisoner in the Gus
tody of his bondsmen, who have hail-
ed him upon a charge preferred against
him by State Court, can not be ar
rested by the United States authorities
for violation of the Federal laws.
Such an arrest would not be defense
to an action upon the bond of said
sureties for default in prod ucing the
prisoner"
(Here follow several decisions too
lengthy to be given here.
Such persistent and excessive zeal
could have found vent and honest EN-.
ployment nearer home, and been kept
reasonably busy.
Then if justice and fairness alone was
sought, it is reasonable to suppose that
it could have been secured in the
courts of this State.
The Board of Managers of the Ohio
State Prison have unanimously rec
commended the parole of Rob't L. Lind
say.
This is of little practical benefit, as 1t
would still keep him prisoner away
from his native state and home, and
far away from friends.
Concede that he is all that the U. s.
District Attorney at st. Louis would
desire to prove him to be, and the ques-
ton is considering that his seizure and
conveyance to Ohio was illegal, and
his conviction therefore shaded with
that illegality; and considering the
unanimous recommendation of the
Prison Board of Managers, has not the
punishment already been severe and
ample and sufficient? And would not
the ends of justice be served, if now
his full pardon be granted, which we
respectfully petition.
Not an owner of land has been de-
prived of his property, nor was an acre
available to the mistaken zeal Of the
United States District Attorney, and