The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1899-08-05

taeked he rtgA4 ef ths acsaaw reverence
Of Uas1c1o 10 Assume she author.ty vested
n III g0vernor IN matters u extradision.
Under tie laws 81 The Cnttsd states which
governed extrAdffj0n. the governor alone
could acx- A state d5d not have tAs power
% confer authority In UucA cases a IN
acting governor.
Permit me one question: INTERRUPTED
Prusecuting Attorney AcElroy.
'Certainly." replied Mr.. P1sea
is z possShae that the state Of ulinofs
b without executive authorityrs
In this matter Il b. = was TIE reply.
Inducements h Attae2oa.
II was argued shat The acting sossenor
had not even certified 20 the indictment
- being authenttc. vhlch. Il II said =
required By the iAws Of the United states.
II was pointed out that the warrant r.
sued in this state shows that the acting
governor did no certify the indictment 70
Be authentic
'.But plant the prisoners sishs 10 no
erty." said Ar. Pslea "on . broader
ground I believe that no charge has been
made asainst this man. II mere pre-
tense ! challenge counsel TO snow that
the crime alleged n felony. Under the de-
cisi0ns Of Illinois courts Il b nothing moro
than . miaiemeanor."
Coucerning the laws Of qlltuoaa Il ives
said that al other ofIenses than those pun
ishable BY death and imprisonment In tho
penitentiary were misdemeanors.
After discussing the indictment Mr..
Piles took UP the complaint against Dan
CouGhlin. and said that there was not
word In II. alleging that he had attempted
to corrupt" Juror. The language was
that he had attempted to Influence"
Nothing was stated ~ tending 20 show
that Coughlin did any overt act and the
affldavit failed to even follow the Ian
guage OF the statute.
Here some Interesting information about
the case was picked out from the papers
sent out from Illinois asking for extradi-
tion. A. stated In court by Armstrong;
attorney. Juryman Taylor told the Judge
that . man had attempted to brtbe him,
and that he refused The Judge then sent
Taylor hack 10 accept = pledge. and induce
the man to commit the crime OF bribery.
Taylor b supposed to have complied and
received . 19Oe diamond ID . pledge. II
was argued that tAis was . strange pro-
ceeding.
Accsrdins 10 The. argument. the laws OF
Illinios make Il penal offense to ''cor-
rupt'' Juror by offering him bribe. but
do not attempt TO punish the mere influenc-
ing OF opinions Of jurors. The charge
against Coughiin was that OF merely In
nusncing'' and did not charge bribery.
No Urine III. Jtlb00to.
The proposition was laid down that the
charge against Armstrong was founded
on that made against Coughiin. Therefore
could not be any charge against Arm
strong. Mr.. Plies went on TO show that
there was no. charge against Cougklin be-
cause the allegations did not include the
elements necessary to constitute an Of
cnse. Then he proceeded to diecuss the AZ.
6davit against Coughiin. and made special
mention OF the personal description OF the
alleged jury briber.
The laws Of A.-.nois." put In Prosecute
ing Attorney McElroy. "allow descrip-
tive complaint
IF that be true" replied Mr. Piles.
''there Is no description here. This y all
most q universal description
Mr.. Piles snid that in proceeding against
Coughlin where II was absolutely neces-
sary to use the words corrupt" or '.at-
tempt" they had been omitted. you must
follow the language Of the complaint" he
continued 'sThe justice-1f the peace had
no jurisdiction over Coughlin because no
crime had been charged Therefore there
Is no charge against Armstrong"
He said that there was no charge that
Armstrong committed m overt act until
Juryman Taylor and Private Detective
McGarry conspired to have the laws Of
Illinois violated. II Armstrong tried to ge.
Tayior to so away and thus weaken the
case against Coughlin he did so after a
conspiracy had been Matched By Taylor
and McGarry.
Mere solicitation without an overt act.
he says. does not constitute a crime In
Illinois II was claimed that the indic.-
ment did not Get forth an overt act and
intent 1t was stated that the higher
courts Of Illinois win not allow officers Of
the law to 60 out and solicit men to COM
nit crime. A large number Of authorities
from Illinois and Michigan reports were
cited In this connection. Some Of the
opinions strongly condemned the policy OF
putting up lvos' to get men red hand
ed In crime"
Detective Tyrres1 Called.
At the conclusion Of the argument in
Armstrong; behalf Prosecuting Attorney
McElroy called Detective Tyrreii 10 stand
to identify Armstrong as the man wanted
In Chicago. and also to establish the fact
that he. Tyrrell. was the agent OF the
state Of Illinois. After . long technical
fight this matter was adtudicated. and
then came the question OF Gov. Tanners
afidavit. Armstrong; attorneys knocked
this out with one blow. claiming that the
case must stand on the papers submitted.
An adjournment was then taken until
$50 o'clock this morning.