The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-11-18
THE LAW OF THE CASE.
Gov. Durbin's Action in Refusing to
Honor Beckham's RequisitiOn.

Honor Beckham's Requisition.
To the Editor Of the indianapolis Journal:
The editor of the city Democratic organ
has been carrying at the head of his col
umns for some time Section 10 Of the Con-
stitution, and in large-faced type is the
word shall" The only inference that a
reader can draw is that the extradition
clause Of the Constitution, from a legal
standpoint, is mandatory; that the Cover
nor is legally compellable to deliver a fugi-
tive from an adjoining State, whether he
be a fugitive from justice or a fugitive
from injustice; that if a requisition is
made out by the Governor of Kentucky
on the Governor of Indiana to return a
person to Kentucky for trial in the latter
State the Governor Of Indiana has but
one thing to do-to send him to Kentucky
and there place him at the mercy of the
feuds, passions and political corruption of
that State: that the Governor is legally
compellable to send that person to that
State to be tried, whether he can receive
any legal trial at all and in view of the
fact that an enormous corruption fund
has been raised to prosecute this particular
person, and that the most intense political
hatred exists against this particular per-
son, and in further view Of the fact that he
In all probability will be tried, as the re-
mainder of the accused were tried, by a
jury who were all Goebel Democrats.
Whatever may be the moral obligation
resting upon the Governor of this State,
| assume only TO answer Governor Beck
ham and the Democratic editor when hey
said that Governor has violated the Con-
stltution and done an illegal act. / as
sert without fear of successful contradic-
ton that Governor Durbin violated no
law, statutory or organic, when he refused
to honor the requisition of Governor Beck
man,. Interstate eXtradition Is the sur
render OF a fugitive from justice by one
of the States OF the Union to another upon
It's demand, in pursuance of the Consti-
tuition and laws of the United States" 1t
will be noticed first that it is not every
"fugitives from justice" and the Governor
upon whom the demand is made must de-
termine for himself whether the person
charged is a fugitive from Justice and
has a right to demand, by competent proof,
that the accused is in fact a fugitive from
Justice of the demanding State. lex Parte
Reggel, ia U. s., 642; Roberts VS.. Reilly,
no y. s., So; Cook VS.. Hart, LAG L. S.,
1881 No particular mode of proof has
been prescribed by Congress, that be-
ing left TO the discretion of the ex-
ecutive. The national Supreme Court has
further said that the duty to deliver a
fugitive from justice is a moral obligation
imposed upon him, and in case of his re-
fusal TO meet the surrender there is no
power In the federal government to compel
him to perform that duty. In support that
1t is only a moral obligation I cite the case
OF Kentucky VS.. Dennison IA Howard. 66I
and Taylor VS.. Tiantor He Wallace, 1861,
and a writ of certiorari will not be issued
against the Governor TO compel the produc-
ton of the papers on which he issued his
warrant. Work VS.. Corrington, 81 Ohio
State, 64.1 And he may even revoke his
warrant at any time before the removal
from the State [69 Mimi. 104.l The Gov
ernor is invested with discretion to re-
yoke his warrant If the extradition has
been improperly sought. Hartman VS..
Aveline, 63 Ind, 344; Robbs VS.. Connely,
Ill u. S, gal When it appears that the
extradition proceedings have been set in
motion as a mere pretext for instituting
civil suits against him in the State TO
which he is to be taken the extradition will
not be allowed. In the case of Kentucky
VS.. Dennison [26 Howard, 66l there was an
application for a writ or mandamus in
the United States Supreme Court to COM
pei the Governor of Ohio to deliver a fugi-
tive from justice to the State of Kentucky.
The State charged the fugitive with assist
ing a slave TO escape from it's owner, and
the only question in the case was whether
or not Governor DennisOn, of Ohio, was
legally comDellable to return the fugitive
TO Kentucky. The court, in determining
the question as TO whether the duty was a
legal or a moral one, said: The words
it shall be the duty in ordinary legisla-
f - NAN 1ONC ~
command and enforce obedience. But, look
ing to the subject matter of this law and
the relations which the United States and
the several States bear to each other, the
court is of opinion that the words 1T shall
be the duty were not used as mandatory
and compulsory, but as declaratory of a
moral duty which this conduct created
when Congress had provided a mode of car
rying 1T into execution. 1t does not COM
pei the execution of this duty nor inf1ict
any punishment for not doing it. nor is
there anV nr0[iSiOn which arms the pON--
eminent of the United States with this
power. Indeed, such a power would place
every State under the dominion of the
general government, and we think ii clear
that the federal government. in the Con-
%stitution, has no power to impose on any
State officer any such duty whatever TO
compel him to perform it. The performance
of this duty was to be left to the sense Of
justice and mutual interest among the
States. If the Governor Of Ohio refused TO
discharge this duty there is no power dele
gated to the general government, either
through judicial departments or any other
department, TO use any coercive means to
compel him. and upon this ground the mo-
ton for the mandamus must be overruled."
For political effect II may be the Demo-
cratic editor and Governor Beckham have
taken the stand that our Governor has
violated the Constitution. II is not the
first time that wild-eyed Democrats have
attuned their harps to that sweet sound in
Democrats ears, unconstitutional con-
duct" 1t will not be the last time that the
Democratic party will take that stand.
But, as between the editor and the Ken
lucky statesman, the latter born of bloody
conditions and good luck, and the United
States Supreme Court, / prefer to risk the
assertion and to believe In the doctrine
that Governor Durbin violated no legal
clause Of our national Constitution, and
that if he failed at all II was only a fail
ure involving moral turpitude; and as to
the morality Of delivering this fugitive
from Kentucky injustice into the hands Of
Campbell and the deadly vendetta of
Southern politics. I must confess that. even
from a moral standpoint, Governor Durbin
was faithful to his oath as Governor Of
this commonwealth. NJ. L. CDAWSON.
Indianapolis, Nov. 16.