The record-union., 1893-12-28
A STRANGE CASE.

The State of California through its
courts issued a warrant for the arrest of a
man in New York. The Governor of
the State of California indorsed the war
rant, and issued his requisition to the
Governor of the State of New York for
the delivery of the man to the States
agent, otherwise the officer commissioned
to make the arrest and return the prisoner
to California. The Governor of New
York finding the proceedings regular and
the application proper, indorsed the war
rant and issued his order for the delivery
of the prisoner to the agent of the State Of
of California for deportation.
When the officer secured his prisoner
the friends of the latter swore out writ
of habeas corpus, and the courts of New
York examined into the matter. and
found no reason for discharging the
prisoner or declaring the proceedings had
in any wise irregular. Thereupon the
officer started for this State, and all went
we'll until he reached Winnemucca, Ne
vada, when an officer of that jurisdiction
appeared and served him with an order
under habeas corpus proceeding to bring
his prisoner before a local Judge. This
the California agent refused to do, on the
ground, whether sound or not, that he
was the States agent transporting the
prisoner from New York to California,
and that State comfy permits the
passage uninterruptedly of such agents
over the territory of intermediate States.
But the prisoners friends were equal to
this, and replied with warrant of arrest
for some petty offense, and thus secured
possession of the prisoner. He was there
upon discharged on bail. and his friends
stood ready to furnish it. Whether this
was for answer to the charge on which
the Nevada officer arrested him. or on
the habeas corpus proceedings, we are not
informed.
Attorneys representing the State of
California have gone over to Nevada to
try and save the situation, and we shall
presently have news of the outcome. In
the meantime a very serious. and, as
the lawyers put it, wholly new case is
before US. The question is whether the
agent Of one State under the authority of
another States approval, and the requisi-
ton of his own State, has not the right to
cross the territories of other States with
out judicial interference? If this is not
true, then il is claimed the purposes of
requisition are liable to be defeated.
Should not the territory lying between
the two States acting in such cases be
absolutely judicially neutral territory?
Suppose the contrary is held, then
when the agent of California RECEIVERS
prisoner in New York on a requisition
issued by California, and approved and
honored by New York, the officer can
have his man taken from him the instant
he crosses the Pennsylvania line on his
return trip. If he is not deprived of his
prisoner by the courts of the Keystone
State. and goes on, he may be stopped
again as soon as he crosses the Ohio line.
Freeing himself there, he may next be
challenged in the Hoosier State, again in
Illinois, again in Iowa, and so on in
Nebraska, Colorado, Wyoming, Utah
and finally in Nevada
If that is to be the rule States agents
viii indeed have a rocky road to travel
who go hence to secure fugitives from
California justice. In fact the gantlet
they will be compelled to run, will
amount to defeat of arrest and justice,
SO that prisoners escaping from US will
be quite as safe if they fee to an Eastern
State, as if they went to some country
with which we have no extradition
treaty.
But the writ of habeas corpus must
issue whenever an application in due
form is made to Judge of any court OF
competency, since the writ is one of the
bulwarks of human freedom. the shield
that protects us from illegal restraint.
That is all true, and it is not new that
State agents transferring prisoners on