The Memphis appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1886-1890, 1888-12-14
IT CAN'T BE DONE.
Gov Taylor and Those Requisitions.
he Refusing to Aid in the Bringing
OF the Bagging Trust Men
From the State of Missouri Into
Tennessee, and Gives Reasons.
That They Are FuSitives From
Justice is Not Clearly Shown,
Gen. Peters's Affidavit to That Effect
Notwithstanding Believes the
Attorney General to Be
Mislniormod.
Special Dispatch to The Appeal


NASHVILLE, Tenn, Dec. l3.-Gov. Tay-
q. or today rendered his decision in the mat
\ ter OF the requisition asked by Attorney
General Peters for the members of the st.
Louis Bagging Trust recently indicted for
misdemeanor in the Criminal Court OF
Memphis. After having considered the
arguments bearing upon the case advanced
by Mr. Peters, Attorney General for the
Criminal Court, and Mr. w. l.. Clapp and
Gen. Luke Wright, attorneys for the trust,
Gov. Taylor decides that he cannot grant
the requisition desired. The following Of.
fetal notification OF his decision has been
sent to Mr.. Peters and to Mr.. Clapp:
The demand for reqdisltlon Of Isaac S. Warren.
l.. !. Jones, Ben Gmu Anderson Grntz nnd
Joel Wood, charged with conspiracy. in the Cen.
tnl Criminal Court OF shelby County.
have carefully considered the applica-
ton made for requisition herein, together
with the affidavit OF District Attorney G.
b. Peters, alleging that defendants had
fled from this State and were now fugi-
tives from justice in the State OF
Missouri, and also the numerous afii.
davits filed by defendants ATTORNEYS
OF persons shown TO be reputable citi-
zens OF this State and the State Of Mis-.
souri,, all going TO deny that defendants
had in fact, fled from this State after the
commission Of the ohense charged and
were fugitives from justice. Had there
been no other affidavit before me save that
OF Attorney-General Peters / should not
for moment questioned that defendants
were iugiuves from justice, and should
have issued the rcquisition rs desired;
but counter-prooi having been laid before
me upon this point, which seems to me 10
thoroughly negative the fact OF defendants
having fled from Tennessee and being
from justice, and no further
proof having been offered in proof Of
the Attorney-General's affidavit, am
forced to the conclusion that he has
been misiniOrmed as 10 the real facts, and
that defendants have not In fact fled from
Tennessee and are not actually fugitives
from justice in the State OF Missouri. II
appears clear, on the contrary, that they
have lived in Missouri for many years
past openly engaged In business, and they
are now so. Three appear never TO have
been in Tennessee, and the other two not
within the time of the ofense charged.
and then only casually On route through
the State. Unless they have constructiyely
fled and are constructiycly iugiliyes, they
are not 30 at all. Upon an examination
Of the text writers and the decisions bear.
ing on the construction OF our extra
dition laws, ] am reluctantly driven TO
the opinion that there must be an actual
fleeing before l can. under the laws OF the
United States and the State, issue my
requistion. So are all the authorities
that have been able to find, both State
or Federal, or to which | have been re-
fered. See ex parte, Ala. in Remohi;
73 Ala, sos; Wilcox W. Noltz, "a Ohio,
80; Hartman vs.. Avalcn, GO Ind. 3i6;
Jones w. Leonard, 30 Iowa, IOG; Hebler
w. State, ~ Tex, l07; Rejackson Flip
pen (U. s. los; ROBBERS vs. Reillcy, llG
(U. =. }, ~; Rover interstate law, 22l.2;
Spear extndit'on, lg7, 200, and others.
These authorities seem 20 settle that
Article I. Section Of the Federal Consli-
tuition when Il provides for the issuance Of
rcquisition In cases where "a person
charged In any State with treason, felony
.otIpther crime, who shall flee from justice
and be found In another State, shall, on
demand Of the executive Of the State from
which he fled, be delivered up" etc. uses
the language, flee from justice" in its
ordinary acccptaiion, and means just what
Il says II seems further that before the
Governor ofany State can lawfully issue rc.
QUESTION he must have satisfactory evidence
that the person demanded has He'd and il
afugiiyc. lie must 30 certify over his
personal signature and the great seal OF
the State. This Is plain enough, but Il
has been urged that when certified cupy
Of an indictment, with the onidayit OF the
Atiorney-Goneral that the person indicted
IL fugitive, n laid before me, this cuts Oh
further investigation Of tire fact Of fleeing
and the rcquisition must then be issued. |
cannot assent 10 this view. Such an all.
dayit without more would be sufficient
evidence Of the fact, upon which ! might
and would act, but the Attorney-General
h not the only source OF information open
70 the Governor. In determining the
fact i is his right aud duty 10
hear all the evidence offered, and while he
may not seek evidence disproying the ale.
CATION Of fight, vet when Il IL offered II
Ntnuol nc ONtfluoktu uuu ulAftgafdcu.
The affidavit Of any official, and especially
Of Attoncy.Genoral Peters, Is entitled TO
great weight, but is not conclusive. lie is
liable 10 be mistaken or misiniormed, and
IN the very nature Of things gets the facts
as 10 which he dcposes at second hand,
and they are, therefore, not inconirovcrli.
bic II become satisfied, o. In the pres.
ent case, that he is In error, must
J., Notwithstanding, certify that he
Is righl2 Surely tho law cannot
be construed into requiring me 10
issue requisition upon a state Of facts
which tho law itself says are insufficient 10
Justify the Governor OF Missouri In issuing
his warrant upon. The law does not cross
itself thus. For these and other reasons
which might bc set out, decline 10 issue
the rcquisiion asked for. In thus dispos.
ing Of this application, | have not, as has
been assumed, passed, or attempted 10
pass, on tho question Of the guilt or limo.
concc Of the defendants. This Is a matter
which am not called upon TO pass. The
ground alone on which my action Is pred.
icated Is that defendants have not fed
from Tennessee aud are not fugitycs from