The Anaconda standard. [volume] (Anaconda, Mont.) 1889-1970, 1898-01-14
JOHNSON IS A FREE MAN
Court Renders a Decision in the
Habeas Corpus Proceedings.
JUDGE BRANTLYS REVIEW
He Criticises Mildly the People in Mis-
souri, Who Either Misrepresented
the Facts or Were Guilty of
Neglect or Ignorance.

Joseph G. Johnson, who has had
about all the trouble he cares to have
again in SO short a space of time, is
once more a free man, or rather he will
be a free man when Judge Brantly's
order reaches Missoula. The decision
of Judge Brantly in the habeas corpus
proceedings is quite a lengthy one, and
was delivered orally The decision,
Which will be read with interest by
thousands of people throughout the
state, is as follows:
In the application for naoeas corpus
in the case of Joseph c. johnson, the
man whom the authorities of the state
of Missouri are trying to have taken
back there on the charge of kidnapping
Katie Neel.
There are two points raised by this
petition. The first goes. to the suTIi-
cheney of the extradition proceedings,
and the second raises an issue upon the
question as to whether or not the APP
plicant is in fact a fugitive from JUS
tice. Upon the first point the proceed
lngs are exceedingly meager, and on
some points also irregular, but / be-
lieye the weight of authority is that,
IN all those matters upon which ques-
fions have been raised here by the APP
plicant, as to matters of procedure, the
action of the governor is final. If the
proceedings can by any intendment at
all be regarded as sufficient, it does not
belong to the court to review the action
OF the governor, and therefore that this
court cannot review these irregulari-
ties This is enough to dispose of that.
The matter of extraditing offenders
upon the demand OF the governor of
one state upon the governor of another
state does not rest on any legal obli-
cation as between the executives of
the states. OF course, it depends upon
legislation of congress carrying out the
provisions of Article 4, Section 2, of the
constitution of the United States. But
there Is no provision of law by which
governor may be compelled to de-
liver uD an offender who has sought
asylum within the boundaries of his
jurisdiction, and so it is said by the
courts that the duty rests only in or
upon moral obligation. Therefore,
When a governor of a state upon legal
&c nand refuses To deliver up the of
Tender, even though he do it wilfully,
there is no provision of law by which
he can be compelled to deliver him up.
Hence, the courts have taken the view
that | have just indicated.
The applicant, however, may at any
time while he is under the charge of
the officer of the demanding governor,
have the question decided. before any
local court that has jurisdiction of the
matter, by habeas corpus, as 10 whether
or not he is in fact 4 Fugitive from
justice, Notwithstanding the fact that
he is. In other words, although the af-
fidayits that accompany the demand sci
forth in positive language that the per-
son demanded is a fugitive from JUS
tice, nevertheless the courts can in
uuire into the evidence as To whether
he is in fact u fugitive from Justice.
and unless it appears that he is, then
he is entitled To his release it is in
cumbent upon the demanding governor
TO furnish evidence of that fact: in
nj he nrfjG l1. I.t,.G
demanding governor. and not upon the
defendant that he is not. Still, if the
proceedings themselves show that the
offender demanded is fugitive from
justice by affidavit or otherwise, then
it is incumbent upon him upon his aD-
plication to show that it is not true, be-
cause the affidavit is prima facie evil
dence of that fact. That question can
be gone into orally, and either side can
introduce oral evidence tending to es-
tablish or disaffirm that proposition
This arises out OF the necessity of the
case 1t must be done for the reason
that courts are not inclined, and they
should not be inclined, to allow them
selves to be made instruments OF fraud
and misrepresentation. This matter has
been passed upon too often to say that
1t Is matter of dispute. The authori-
ties are unanimous. believe, upon this
proposition.
For the purposes of this application
therefore we VIII consider the propo-
sition as to whether or not the proofs
in this case show as a matter of fact
that the applicant is a fugitive from
justice. We will assume that the gov
ernor of Missouri had sufficient to act
upon in the way of documentary evil
dence: that a charge mad been pre-
ferred in proper court against the an
plicant. and that the offense was com
lmitted within the boundaries of the
state of Missouri. and within the iuris-
diction of the officer who issued the
warrant. We will admit for the pur-
poses of this case that the affidavit and
accompanying papers that We're pre-
scented to the governor of Montana set
forth enough in the way of positive
statements to show the governor that
the applicant had fled from the state
of Missouri after committing the crime
therein. The governor acts as a MIN
isterial officer, and not as a judicial Of
ficer. We will admit for the purposes
of this case that the governor of the
state of Montana, or the lieutenant gov
ernor, who acted upon this matter be-
ing not a judicial officer, but minis
teria officer, had sufficient before him
to authorize him to issue his warrant
for the arrest of the applicant and di-
recting that the applicant be turned
over to the messenger from the gov
ernor of Missouri.
Now, what / say in reference to the
facts in this case will have no apnlica-
tion to the executives of the two states.
We shall presume that they did what
---------------