The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-01-14

ly they did, from the fact that they
must of necessity have been entire
strangers-we will assume that they
were entire strangers-to the persons
making the application and that they
did just what they would do under any
other like circumstances. The evidence
having been produced before them ii
put into motion the machinery of the
law to secure the delivery of the appli-
cant.
Now, the facts of the case are these:
1t appears here by affidavit that the Of
Tense of kidnapping was committed in
Saline county, Missouri, on the 2fth day
of November. and that on the 27th. or
about that time. the applicant fled from
the state Of Missouri and took refuge In
the state of Montana. These are the all
legations of the affidavts.
The evidence introduced here, which
is uncontradicted and must he taken as
establishing the facts to which the an
plicant testifes. is that the applicant
left the county Of Saline. state of Mis-
souri,. on the 9th day of November, and
went to Kansas City; that on the 12tn
day of November he there met Katie
Neel, the person whom he is charged
with having kidnapped, and that he
saw her no more after that until the
18th Of November when he met her at
the boarding house where she was stay
ing in Kansas City. She did not ac-
company him from Saline county to
Kansas City and returned there after
he left the latter place. He left kan
sas City on the 10th of November and
arrived in Butte on the 18th. On the
18th telegram was sent TO him by her
from Sweet Springs. Saline county, Mis-
souri,, addressed to him at Butte. This
telegram reached Butte on the 18th and
was delivered to him on the 2lst; this
appears, from his testimony, and also
from the testimony of the telegraph
operator in Butte. The evidence is con-
elusive that he remained in the state
of Montana and at Butte City until the
eth, the day on which he is alleged to
have committed the crime of kidnap-
ping in the state of Missouri, and that
he then left Butte and went to Mis-
soula where he was arrested under the
warrant of the governor. The proof
further shows that Katie Neel left
Sweet Springs, Saline county, Missouri,
two or three days prior to the I'D and
that she arrived in Butte on the I'D
and there met the applicant. Now, 1t
has nothing to do with this case that
they were intimate. There We're some
suggestions made here that they We're.
But it is perfectly apparent from the
statement of facts that 1t is not pos
sible that the crime of kidnapping could
have been committed by the applicant
in the state of Missouri on the 9th, nor
at any time prior to the 21th as far
back as the 10th Of November. That is
absolutely fixed by the proof and incoh-
troyertible.
Now. it is a principle that is laid
down by the authorities that 1t must
appear to the governor in granting the
warrant and to the court in review
that the crime was committed within
the jurisdiction Of the demanding GOV
ernor at the time charged aud that
thereafter the applicant fled from that
Jurisdiction and took asylum in the
jurisdiction Of the governor upon whom
the demand is made. Now. the appl-
cation for extradition is evidently based
upon the theory that after Joseph g.
Johnson, the applicant herein reached
Butte, he, by some hypnotic or other
means. deeoyed Katie Neel out of the
state of Missouri and got her into the
state of Montana. he certainly used
neither force nor violence. Now, If he
did do that he is guilty of no crime IN
| the state of Missouri, because the crime
| of kidnapping III the state of Missouri
would require, in my opinion, the per-
| sonal presence Of the man, or person.
who is charged with having committed
it, Katie Neel is "a or 70 years of age.
1t requires violence and force to COM
nit the crime of kidnapping. At any
rate. he was not present in the state
| of Missouri at the time the crime is
charged to have been committed, and il
he did it by hypnotic or other influences
by correspondence or otherwise, after
he arrived in the state of Montana,
Their he cannot be guilty of any
crime at that time and therefore
he Is not subject to be delivered up. be-
cause the person must be personally
within the jurisdiction at the time the
crime is committed.
Then, if he committed the crime at
I fA,a IN II of M
vember the question arises, Why should
these parties know of the circum-
stances and not set forth the circum-
stances as they really We're? Why
make misrepresentation to the au-
thorities that the thing took place at
| a particular time, when IT was abso-
lutely sure and certain that 1t did not
and could not have taken place at that
time? The whole application makes this
impression on my mind: That for some
reason or other it Is desired to have this
man back in the state of Missouri; thai
is, by the persons that have put this
machinery into operation, and that there
has been an imposition of some kind
praeticed on the governor of the state
Of Montana. It is sought to get nm
back into the state of Missouri to pun
ish him for a crime from the conse-
quenees of which he did not flee. And
it is we'll established that he cannot be
taken back on one charge and prose-
cuted on another. He may be guilty of
some crime in the state of Missouri, but
certainly it does not appear from this
application that he is guilty Of any
crime, or at any rate. that he has fled
| from the consequences of any crime
| that is set forth in this application.
This is the impression that | get from
studying this record, and while it is not
| the business of this court to reflect upon
| the good people of Missouri or upon the
authorities in the state of Missouri. still
] think that the persons who put the
authorities of Missouri into motion to
bring about this extradition have been
| guilty either of a gross fraud upon the
| authorities, or else they have been
! grossly or inexcusably negligent in set
| ting forth the necessary facts in order
/ to put the machinery in motion. We
! are bound to reach this conclusion.
There has been good deal said in
! the public prints about lynch law and