West Virginia Democrat. [volume] (Charles Town, W. Va.) 1885-1890, 1888-05-18
WEST VIRGINIA AND THE SUI
PREME COURT.

| tJaIlOr Oh IKE SOuitl, Et.J LUIS
was an application for hdbeds cor
pus arising out of the Hatfield Nc
Coy vendetta, and rs it is matter
of general interest in the State, we
surrender to 1t our space:
Mahon, who is a citizen of West
Virginia, was indicted in 1882 by
the Circuit Court of Pike County,
KY, on three charges of willful and
deliberate murder. In September
of last year the Governor OF Ken
lucky made requisition upon the
Governor of West Virginia for the
surrender Of Mahon to answer the
indictments found against him, and
appointed Frank Phillips an agent
to bring Mahon into the State of
kentucky when arrested under the
requisition. The Governor of West
Virginia refused to comply with the
requisition, and in January last
Phillips and others seized Mahoni in
West Virginia and forcibly car
ried him to Pike County, where
he was thrown intojail charged with
murder. The Governor of West
Virginia made formal demand for
Mahon's release, which was refused
by the Governor of Kentucky. and
application was then made for
writ of habeas corpus. 1t was con-
tended on behalfof Mahon That this
action of Phillips was violation of
the Constitution of the United
States, because it deprived him of
his liberty without due process of
law, while counsel for the State OF
Kentucky maintained that the act
ion of Phillips in Selling Mahon
was unauthorized. but that the State
of Kentucky was fully justified in
holding him when he was found
within her borders, and that the
question of how lie came there was
not to be considered. ANY remedy
sought to be applied, it was assert
ed, must be brought against Phillips
for trespass and not against the
State of Kentucky. The court in
it's opinion says that the Governor
of West Virginia in his application
proceeded upon the theory that it
was the duty of the United States TO
secure the inviolability of the terri
tory of the State from the lawless
Invasion Of persons from other
States, and when parties had been
forcibly taken from her territory, to
afford the means of compelling their
return, and that this obligation
could be enforced by writ of habeas
corpus. The court then enunciates
the following as its views with re-
gard TO the rights of States in these
cases: "If the States of the Union
were possessed of an absolute sover
eighty instead of a limited one they
could demand of each other repara-
ton for an unlawful invasion Of
their territory and the surrender of
parties abducted and parties COM
hitting the ofiense, and in case of
refusal to comply with the demand
could resortto reprisals or take such
other measures as they might deem
necessary as redress for the past
and security for the future. But
the States Of the Union are not alb
solutely sovereign. Their ability to
prevent invasions Of their territory
and the forcible abduction of persons
residing within it consists only in
their power to punish all violations
of their criminal laws committed
within their limits, whether by their
own citizens or by citizens Of other
States. If such violators have es-
capped from the jurisdiction of the
State invaded their surrender can
be secured upon proper demand on
the Executive of the State to which
they have fed. The surrender Of
the fugitives in such cases to the
State whose laws have been violated
is the only aid provided by the laws
of the United States for the punish
ment of depredations and violence
committed in one State by intruders
and lawless bands from other States.
The offenses committed by such par
ties are against the State; and the
laws of the United States merely
provide the means by which their
presence can be secured in case they
have fled from its justice. No mode
is provided by which person I'M
lawfully abducted from one State to
another can be restored to the State
from which he was taken, if held
upon any process of law for olfenses
against the State to which he has
been carried. If not thus held he
can, like any other person wrongful
ly detained of his liberty, obtain his
release from detention on habeas
corpus. Whether Congress might
lot provide for the compulsory res
toration to the State of parties
wrongfully abducted from its terri
tory upon application Of the parties,
or of the State, and whether such
provision would not greatly tend to
the public peace along the borders
of different States, are not matters
for present consideration. 1t is suf
ficient now that no means for such
redress through the courts of the
United States have as yet been pro-
vided." Justice Bradley, in Wig