The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1888-04-24
ARGUMENT
Res,lp in the Famous Hatfield
Mccoy Cases,
IN the United States Supreme
Court, by Eustace Gibson
For West Virginia and Proctor
Knott for Kentucky.
A Mistake Alleged to Have Been
Made by Gov Wilson
At the Beginning of the Inter-
State Controversy.
The Blackmaii Phase Of the Ques-
ton Presented, Etc.
. Mistake Alleged to Have Been
Made by Gov. Wilson

WA,mSGToN, y. Or Aprli -o.AisU
mcnts in the cast OF PIyant Nlahoh, aP-
,,Iar, AGAINST Abncr Justice, Jailer OF
pelham ,' von,rcLv fthe Hatfield-
HSe county, - .:5oy' IN tho Su.
Mccoy c"sel oes"u 'o'N' " W
orene Court.
uor rns,occ Gibson opened for West
-. "C". ,. Wo oorsrmed one hour and n
Virginia ii' ,0'''T,, ',,s,.aI.o IT,, ord
half OF the two hours aIlo''eu W mn "NN
advocated his cause strongly ana hueht-
Iv concluding as follows:
!! ,,,r,' ,T', ,a,DofEortrckv admitting the
,.i,,i,,l iiT 'I",sT can,nrr and Violation OF the
Wionsiu' Ts,, pirpnnt H|p, NoLon's. constitutional
felato' ;, ,a;Ms !! "" ,hot she was no party
nrghts, e""i'9 1 no, I''%s rosnonsiLle therefor.
thereto ., anu a. i'ov ',,toTnhI" The taxing
Ihis PTslsaoN PI;,,. ,ros 10 "nn continnous net by
anu holut1E 80 M' thN % State ok entuckv.
the%nvIL.'o'sTit In ~, ior r tbc nnrnoses of his
anu wiz w., lea -. "'s ~ ~ phillibs in canturinp
ea'J. ~ Mn" in iorkinr him up in iail
without warrants Of mittimus, were both
the wrongful acts OF the State OF Ken
tucky lseo Cooley Constltutiohal Lin,
itation, page; and being thus carried
out OF their own jurIstlcIon INTO the
jurisdiction OF the State oil hent9cKy py
fraud and force OF arms, and held nnder
arrest, while so held no process could be
legally served upon him or become due
process OF law, nor could the State oil
Kentucky or the courts thereof acquire
any rights or get any jurisdiction by TINS
wrong, Upon this point refer you 10
Is Penn, 81, u Pickering, 2'O, ana cases
therein tl!gg' MmI " '0'" o' 1''''
DGtiI'Vio, ain ~iSw oi ali Of which respectfully
submit that the regulator has been cap
turcd and is now detained, in violation .atl
Of MS CohsutG'ITn Wt ;ss,';o rstS 10 and I ~ tba
o. ite S'a!e Vi Me1' 1 ,hnt t%o S Stnto % nf
United STATES anu ~ t'!. ;.,,.OIod sne 9S ""J do
West irgLl''a nus peem ms"T% aUd anu nNiov Wv
ptytu " tao s,,Io,,,, Tio, si ~ vioIot;on of tie
Glcht ~ .ic' S"3I'tIS tSo ~ ITritoJ S,otss of
constitute" Vi 'u' i''U ''''' "
AmeFIca'
PROCTOR KNOTT srEAKs'
Proctor Knott followed for Kentucky,
bnt spoke only twenty minutes. His
main point against the argument OF Mr..
Gibson was that this proceeding is in no
sense Il controversy between West Vir-
ginia and Kentucky, but question OF
law only. II the controversy were be-
tween the two States, he said, the State
having ground OF complaint could secure
redress only by direct proceeding eX-
clusiycly within the Jurisdiction OF this
court and not collateraIly or incidentally
in simple law case like this.
nan upr,v At THE START.
T,;,L,tn,, n.,,oIlr = contost involving
LUIS oc.ls "i.oi'! " .0''''' i"'Va'I"e c,.
rights and relations between the states
Of West Virginia and Kentucky, and
tbo Su,ronc Court having original and
extensive Jurisdiction of controversies
bctwccn States itis believed that a seri-
on. mistote was made Inv the Governor
in onnlyinr for an adindication OF this
issnr h3twson States Nv n court having
M inr;sJ;ctior cxccnt within very mar.
row limits limited States District Judge
Barr said in Ills decision: 'Nor can
ihs conrt consider ony controversy. Il
there Inc ono hctween the State of West
Virrinin and the STATE Of Kentucky.
All sncI, controvnrsv 10 within the iuriis.
Jic,ion NJ tLc Snnrcme Court" The
Cirujt Court in which an appeal was
lojrrI simnlv confirmed this view. It
il t6nS annarant that West virginia had
ahsoin,ciy M s,otms before these courts,
and the adverse decision was by no
means IN Inc wondered ot II is nm inter
STATE % issr" sy -, Will which the little side.
show cHnrts of Kentucky. Federal
thoW,h tLcw bo have nothing to do.
The tiovernor onnI;ad nj the wrong shop
Ior rnIrcss ''V' PP''N>' '
II will tbo,oforo bo coon that the
r,,cccj;n, how;n,, boon wrong from the
hs,ionimg Wnst V;r1;n;o ;s in DANGER Of
hcin" EirteI ont oi thN Snnreme Court
nm tIc 0ncstion of form Without refer,
r"cn M 10 ia mart of Lnr cosc-Nond Il IL
corcoJ,J tbat ts t%c y, Trar;t " w"s yreHt The
S,str is now in Tho nosition If seeking
nj the hands oi the limited states SUI
meme Court n decision ns To the correct
ness NJ a INDIGNANT nosscd Inv inferior
courts havinT nnderthe Federal consti-
tuition and statutes absolutely nothing
10 do with the case exCept TO say that a
citizen of ono Sto,e Indicted for viola
tion oi Iaw in onotSor IL or il not prop
erly in rmstaJv @ % when process Is served
on him "nJ ho 10 ;mnrisoned in the
State in which bc is indicted regardless
Of how hr "n, tSoro The }nrisdjction
oithc lower court ceasesw hen the merit
OF West Virginia's case begins. The
W! Wytlt iG !iGs absolutely IN the iact Lnas ,a4
o' myst NlfSlha was lnEa%eu py arniu,1 i
r ";u.'S Il the suIte ol NgntuSHy itaHiiys. "m nm5
"s'ie " %eF et"1S"s "eEe hetE'H's NV nv
H;nn'"lILy carried INTO an 9l'en nj HIisqaG ~,
s,on . anu l. are there now heia: rms Is ~, v
;; n'gt,Slale ISSUE pure ana slmpls, i,IS 4ua u
hlv"Ily 70 oe feared thAt tne SuPteiis
sou't WiiL refuse TO entertain t1as N.r quSs'
uon IN (Ge appeal proceeding; pgelsions lsl.'
oHappeaIS NealwayS cCplne9 70 tne iac'i
or Fpremlses OF the decision pelow, any l',
II Is now very clear from lhe feGofS pn
winch the court will act tnEt the deCl'
son below in this case did not even
1oucl upon the facts which carry thS
whole Of the merit OF our case-indeed