Pierre weekly free press. (Pierre, S.D.) 1889-19??, 1904-03-17

is claimed she mailed the poison
ed candy; hence it could not be
shown that she fed from this state
but it was thought possible that
she might be willing to come with
out requisition, and inasmuch as
the facts set forth under oath were
by Governor Herreid deemed suf-
ficient to warrant the issuing of
the formal demand upon the gov
ernor Of Iowa, it was even hoped
that in case Of a contest, Governor
Cummins might, in view of the
heinous character Of the crime,
and upon ground Of public policy
and comfy as between states, be
induced to take the position that
the person who mailed the poison
led candy was constructively pres
ent in South Dakota when the
candy reached the innocent and
unsuspecting victim; in other
words, that the personality Of
the prisoner, in all its premeditat-
ed and murderous designs, accom-
panied the box from It's mailing
in Iowa, to its delivery in South
Dakota; but it seems that the gov
ernor of Iowa followed the fed
eral constitution strictly, and SO
refused to surrender Mrs. Dye.
The unfortunate condition Of
the law is to be blamed, however,
rather than Governor Cummins,
for many years ago the Supreme
Court Of Iowa held that the Gov
ernor had no authority to deliver
up citizen who did not flee out
Of the other state.
In the case of Jones ct al, VS..
Leonard, SO Iowa Supreme Court
Report, P. 100. Jones and another
were indicted in Massachusetts for
the crime of Cheating by false
pretenses, with intent to defraud"
The demand Of the Governor Of
Massachusetts was honored by the
governor of Iowa, upon the theory
THAT Jones ct al, were construc-
lively present in Massachusetts,
that they constructively accom-
panied to Massachusetts their false
and fraudulent letter upon which
they obtained credit. The prison
/ ers were discharged upon habeas
corpus proceedings, the supreme
court Of Iowa holding, to quote
it's, cords, that it must appear
that the person charged is d flu
gitiye from justice; that is to say.
that he has fed from the state in
which he Is charged with the crime
to escape punishment. In
other words he must have been in
the state, committed the crime,
and fed
I A modern case, illustrative of
this point, is state VS.. Hall, decid-
ed in 1894 A Mort Carolina de-
cision, reported in % Lawyers
Reports Annotated, P. 28a.
1t was held in this case by the
supreme court Of North Carolina,
that Hall, who, while standing in
North Carolina, shot across the
state line and killed man in
Tennessee, could not be extradited
because he was not a fugitive from,
justice within the meaning of the
constitution Of the United States.
The theory Of constructive pres
ence was repudiated. The latter
decision is accompanied by an ex-
haustive note by the editors of
the u. r. A., in which it is stated,
among other things, that the
cases are very uniform and that
1.-THE courts which have passed
upon the question seem to agree
with State ys. Hall, in holding that
there can be no constructive pres
enee.'
That it WAS this defect in the
IlaN which caused the refusal Of
the requisition is made very clear
by the language used by Cover
{nor Cummins in his decision, as
follows:
The ruling / am compelled to
make upon this application ex-
n 4. 49, 8 y