The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1891-08-10


Ferry has transmitted the following letter
to the governor Of Oregon:
STATE or w,.sHISGToS,
EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT,
OLYMPIA, Aug. s, l59i->
His ExeeIleney, sylvester Pennoyer, salem,
OF.--sfr: On the I5sa uIt, under the provisions
of the constitution and laws OF the United
States. issued a reqrisiton upon yon for the
extFadition Of Adam Cushing and Eliza Cush-
ing, who were charged with the commission of
crime in this state. had fed from justice and
were alleged to be in the state OF Oregon. Al
though received no reply 20 my communica-
ton, yet / learn through the return
OF the agent named in the requisition
that you refused 20 surrender the al
legged criminals upon the ground that they
had not voluntarily entered into the state OF
Oregon, but had been brought there under re-
QUESTION issued by you upon the governor of
Nebraska. and that therefore the constitutional
provision requiring the surrender OF iugitiyes
from justice did not apply TO these alleged fggi
tiyes. Pardon me if dissent froia Jour inter
pretation OF the constitution. Subdivision 2,
section T. o article 4. of the constitution of tie
United states, is az follows: "a person charged
in any state with treason, ialony or other crime,
WHO shall fee from justice aud be found ia an
other state shall, on demand OF the exeeu-
tive authority of the state from which
be fed, be delivered up to be removed to the
state having jurisdiction Of the crime IL
WEI readily be THAT therefore, the executive
OF one state cen make the demand referred TO
upon the executive OF another state. and that
three facts must exist. First, a person must be
charged WITH treason, felony or other crime in
state; second. he must have ted from the
justice OF such state; and third, he must be
found IN another state. Al these facts we're
clearly shown in the reeuisition which was
issued in this Gaze. Adam Gushing and Eliza
Cushing were charged with the commission Of a
crime in this state: they had fed from justice
and were found in the state Of Oregon. Extra
dition was refused, however, solely upon the
ground that they were not voluntarily in the
state of Oregon but had been brought there by
compulsory process.
Let us FIRST consider some of the consequences
that would result from this Interpretation OF the
constitution. A person commits the crime of
murder in this state. He fees from justice and
takes refuge in Nebraska With the assistance
OF a friend or confederate he Is charged with tie
crime OF larceny in the state OF oregon, and
upon requisition brought into the latter state;
is tried and acquitted, and thereafter the state
OF Oregon becomes a safe asylum FOR the muir
derer. He cannot be punished for the crime of
murder In this state, because he did not volun-
tarily go into the state OF Oregon. Or, should
a criminal be carried forcibly from
any state into the state OF Ore
from srrest by exuaditlnsss process because he
mad not voluntarily gone 10 the state. Many of
the highest judic ial tribunals in this country
have considered this extraditfon clause OF the
constitution. / will briefly refer to some OF
those decisions. One Hackney was charged
with the commission OF crime in the state of
Michigan. He fed from that state to the state
OF Indiana; subsequently having been charged
with crime in Indiana he fed 70 the state OF
Ohio He was brought tack to Indiana upon q
requisitiou issued by the governor of Indiana
upon the governor OF Ohio. The governor OF
Michigan issued a requisition upon the
governor OF Indians for the surrender of the
fugitive and Hackney was arrested under the
r.quisition He sued out writ OF habeas corpus
alleging that be had been brought into the state
of Indiana by legal process and therefore should
not be ex.radited under the requisition OF the
governor OF Michigan. The supreme court OF
Indian nsdecided that Il was proper case FOR ex-
tradition. and Hackney was surrendered TO the
authorities OF the state OF Michigan Qo7 Indi-
ana reports, page 25Sl. The supreme court Of
Indiana referred 10 great number OF decisions
OF other states sustaining this view Frederick
NJ Ker was abducted from Peru, South America.
and forcibly earrisd 70 san Francisco. Cal.
where he was arrested on reauisition
from the governor OF Illinois and taken
to the latter state for trial upon
a charge there pending against him. The
point was raised in the Illinois courts that Ker
must be discharged because he had not yoIun-
tarily entered the state california; from which
ne had been extradi:ed The supreme court de-
eided adversely 10 this plea ll0 Illinois reports
page 6-. The supreme court OF the United
Ststes YES the following Interpretation 10 the
provisions o. the constitution which we are,
considering: person who, having committed
within state an act which By the laws ecr,sti-
trtns a crime is,whsr sought for 20 be subjected
t3 criminal process to answer therefor, found
without that state and within tie territory of
another state or territory, Is e fugitive from
Justice within the meaning Of that term as
used in the constitution 0i the United states.~
tRoberts vs. Reilly. il6 United States supreme
court reports, page 81
an aware that the act Of congress apnroved
February T. I793 refers to tie state or territory
10 which such person has fed" II there is any
conflict between these words asd those in the
constitution the latter must control Nv object
in tbs communication is not 70 induce Won 70
change your decision and surrender the fugi-
tiyes Their surrender is now probably irnpos-
sibie as I an informed that they have flad from,
vour jurisd lction. desire simply 70 show that
the demand made upon you wss warranted by
the constitution Of the United states. which we
are ali taUgnt 10 regard SIS the supreme law of
:be land / have the honor 70 be, very respsct-
fully, your o0edient servant,
ELISHA T. FERRY