The San Francisco call., 1898-10-25

provisions of the statutes and constitutions
 taken which appears to have been inserted e1 ] industrta, Tor If respondents interpretation l were adopted such words would be meaning. less. We have no more right to eliminate those 1 words than would have to insert words, and by So doing we would enlarge the terms of the constitution as well as the statutes in ques- tion.
 It is true as stated by the District Attorney | that modern mail facilities make crimes pos | sible without the actual presence of the crfmi-
 nal. Congress has already seen this, and has | to some crimes, acted. The constitution ot | u-e United States gives Congress the exclusive l control Of the mails, and the undisputed right
 and to make such unlawful use criminal, with
 such penalty as 1t shall fix. even to a death
 A great crime may, in the absence of such
 statute as we have in this State. viz, section
 ter that. than that the courts should attempt l to usurp power of government not delegated l to them. Aside from these reasons and the fact l that the people never have adopted, and un- l questlonab ply never would adopt, law, con | them merely because a criminal charge was | made against them In 8 sister State, to be l taken from home and friends and into such | State (which is the construction that the Dis | tTict Attorney asks to put upon the law), | the question has been fully and absolutely set | tied by the highest court in the land, and all the industry of counsel has failed to produce one single case in which any court has ruled as they contend, While score or more have ruled adversely to their contention. The case referred to Is that of ex parte Reggie, 114 U. S. SAP in which Justice Harlan this lan-
 The only question remaining to be consid- cred relates to the alleged want of competent evidence before the Governor of Utah, at the time he issued the warrant Of arrest, to prove that the appellant was fugitive from the justice of Pennsylvania. Undoubtedly the act of Congress did not Impose upon the executive authority of the Territory the duty of surren- dering the appellant, unless 1t was made to appear, in some proper way, that he was pellant was entitled under the act of Congress to insist upon proof that he was within the demanding State at the time he is alleged to md Ih- sequently withdrew from her Jurisdiction so that he could not be reached bv her criminal process The statute, 1t is to be observed, does not prescribe the character of such proof but that the executive authority of the Territory was not required by the act of Congress, to cause the arrest of appellant and his delivery to the agent appointed by the Governor of he was fugitive from justice, Is. in our tudg- ment, clear from the language from that act cluslon that the mere requisition by the exec utive of the demanding State, accompanied by fore magistrate certified by hIm to be au- thentic, charging the accused with crime committed within her limits imposes upon the executive ot the State or Territory where the accused is found the duty of surrendering him although he may be satisfied. from incontest- able proof; that the accused had, in fact never been in the demanding State, and. therefore could not be said to have fled from its jus
 Many other eases could be cited to the same ef3 erect; among them in re Greenough, 3l Vt. Grim. L., Mass S4; Davis case 122 Mass 324: ln re Fetter Fab. N. J., 311; s. C. 57, Am Dec, 8s2; in re Reward 1 sandf., N. Y, 7o1' ex parte Sheldon, 34 Ohio St, 81s; State 1g,o, ys. Buzne' Harr, N J., SIP; Johnson vs. note; State vs. Richter 35 W Rep. g: Kingsbury's case, 106 Mass 223; Am and Eng; Eney. of L., s46-647; Spear on Extrad, pp. 396-400; Moore on Extrad. Sec 5S1; Whart CT. Pl, 18th Ed-), 231; 19 Pac Rep. 9lS 3s Fed.
 The District Attorney finds support for his Gontsntion % ten aa only M in dissenting opinion filed & Fl Rep 732O The oF senting opinion Is to our minds an absurdity and the opinion is supported by no sound req son.
 The decisions all taken together with their various shadings amount to the establishment State at the time any act tending to the ultimate completion of crime was done or who has entered the State and left, whether vol untari1y or invountarily, may be returned to within reach Of the process of a State since the crime or some portion of 1t was committed he cannot be sent there.
 Any other construction than this would sub 1ect every citizen, guilty or innocent, to the possibility Of being removed from the State of his residence to distant State upon the mere filing of complaint in such other State charg- ing crime. All citizens would be at the mercy or their enemies, for under the constitution as well as the statute of this State, which is sub stantially the same language the constltu- tion, 1t would be the duty of the Governor upon 1t being shown to him that criminal charge had been made. to order the arrest and removal of the person charged. for 1t has al- ways been held that the question of guilt or innocence cannot be inquired into. Such re- suit was never contemplated, either by the framers of the constitution, Congress or the Legislature of this State. therefore, words were charged had at some time been within reach of the Jurisdiction, of the demanding State necessary before the liberty of the citizen could be disturbed.
 At the conclusion of the reading Judge Cook said: ''It still remains to be deter mined whether Mrs. Botkin can be tried under section 27 of the Penal Code of this 2 e n nGa1 hn n-lr them to agree upon date for arguing that point.
 District Attorney Hosmer asked that the prisoner be formally charged with murder and the evidence in the case be presented to the Grand Jury for its con sideration.
 Attorney Knight said he was not pre- pared to argue the matter of the courts jurisdiction in the premises
 Hosmer demanded that day be set for the argument, and Knight said he would waive all technicalities. He asked that an order be made by the court re- manding the prisoner to the custody of Chief Lees
 Judge SeawelI said such an order might entangle the case, for if it were entered that the writ of habeas corpus had been denied and a writ of extradition granted. Both counsel and court were at loss how to proceed, but Judge Cook without making any order that might appear on the record, and refusing to make any final order in the matter of the habeas corpus, ana With the consent or both sides, continued the case until Saturday, instructing the prosecution to take such action in the meantime as 1t saw fit either to lay the matter before the Grand Jury or to proceed on information and take the matter into the Police Court.
 Chief Lees and the District Attorney were anything but pleased at the out come, and the Chief, after court ad- journed, declared the case would never go before the Police Court if he could prevent it. He said the evidence would probably be presented to the Grand Jury at its next session.
 Attorney Knight stated that he would place no obstacles in the way of the prosecution bringing the matter to trial here, but was satisfied to let the prose- cution proceed either before the Grand Jury or the Police Court.
 MRS. BOTKIN IS BOSS She Enjoys All the Comforts of Home