Lewiston evening teller. [volume] (Lewiston, Idaho) 1903-1911, 1906-05-01
NO CONSTITUTIONAL RloHT.


NO CONSTITUTIONAL a'aaT.
Boise statesman.
Thouwht : determined EFFORT II be-
IN, NJ t1ead E6orf indf6 Hhes
id|k 7 kt IL mem a2tr 81 & =
50. & r : 81 COZ q eunl
~ rer1 red % or Z ~ IL
t.onsl rlshs when they we're extra-
6olssrAoz no 6Sid,d, lauest person win
adopt nat xiex affer careful conslde-
radon Of the subject,
The United states constitution does
MT ~tv/ NJ A. - = e. 4pfScrI&n
IN one Stat1 I IN III E sand harry
.notheN I'll III IN gfvs8 by tt
constitut 81 Cont re(A boihsx116
state. Il hsins given the right to se-
cure from another state DSf56n
GAM f4ne2 a k3me d1n3
Ehff4& Is " rielu 4h18
= mi I'd blstitutio| l3MZ1t
mar accused Of crime by one state
s. s,ra,&utoAunin n another and thus
~ = e - on. H
Is Snf@hS3 Of - }constitution II
Fthkt II 1&ccused p6r5bh who shall
nee from justice and be found IN an
-OeAer STATE. SNAIL On oeniano " s"e
executive authority Of the state from
which pc ned. be delirered ilp,r. The
plan6aA&e Of 1Ae Atafvte Isl Sett9vty
unfortunate, but neither the statute
nqEfthef 4onstitN8ien eonteNplqes that
m6h 1flAnning ~ murder 4 n @one state
while residing IN another shall ma
|6A&k61akl II TIA e@f6 where they
CHANGED to be at the time.
When the constitution was framed
broad principles were laid down, and
II has veen the duty Of, cosngress 4and
the courts 70 apply those principles 70
IN manner Of conditions. The courts
ann TO arrive At the intent OF tne con-
atitution To- insist tnat men VINO.
while an one state may nave piannsd
murder m anotner snouid &c EXEMPT
from prosecution by the state IN which
the actual murder was committed
would be absurd ssA '7gss s
No one win T.. .sr,ou. ...,. claim s.s ,ss
to grant men sanctuary under such
circumstances 81 are alleged. in this
sas r.. because !. l.. tr.mer. i that
document aid. not foresee the possi-
bility of7such case a. this and make
specific provision by which to meet #.
It IL claimed sanctuary II granted. Had
the convention desired to establish
sanctuary. under such circumstances;
had there been any reason why. It was
deemed wise to AFFORD men an oppor-
tunity IN on state to plot murder in
another without being held to account.
It would have certainly covered the
point, and set that right forth In plain
words.
Technically these men were IN our
state. IL the charge against them IL
true They are CHARGED with having
committed the murder. and they were
regularly extradited ana are regularly
held. J1nder our iaws they are prose-
Ecuted a nrincipaIs.. and the courts are
not going. to hold that bACQuDe they
were not Icb{uht2M brk{eht hef1 II
the time III III aASfaI doi1missioA 81
the murder. they were entitled to sane
taaxy in. Colorado II has. been held
otI Sndl over h&2k ~ HE courts
lffiIdk lihquire3hhjs ttS jtele secured
accused persons and brought them
from another. In other words. idaho
IL legally in possession Of these men.
II IL no douM fortunate that the
question has arisen IN the prominent
manner Of this case. II serves 10 call
attention to the incongruity Of the con-
tention that men are entitled to sanc-
tuary in another state under the cir
IN passing upon the matter. win sive
~ 2 construction OF constitution ana
statutes that VIII harmonise with COM
mon sense and the interests Of justice