Barton County democrat. [volume] (Great Bend, Kan.) 1885-1915, 1907-02-22

whom her process is served, | will
not inquire bow you came here; l
must execute my laws and remit you
to proceedings against. those who
have wronged you may she so plead
against her own offenseS. May she
claim that by mere physical presence
within her borders an accused person
is within her jurisdiction denuded
OF his Constitutional rights, though
he has been brought there by her
violence?
And constitutional rights the
accused in this case certainly did
have and valuable ones. The founda-
ton of extradiuon between the states
is that the accused shou d be a
fugitive from justice from the de-
man1lug state, and be may challenge
the fact by habeas corpus immediate
ly upon arrest. If he refue the fact
he cannot be removed. Hyatt VS..
~
Corkran (19S U. S. 69D, and the
right to resist removal is not a right
OF asylum. To call it so in the state
Where the accused is, is misleading
1t is the right to be free from
molestatlon. 1t is the right of person.
al liberty in its most complete sense
and this right was vindicated in Hyatt
VS.. CoTkran and the fiction of a con-
structive presence in a state and
constructive flight from a constructive
presence rejected.
This decision illustrates at once the
value of the right and the value of
the means to enforce the right 1t is to
be hoped that our criminal jurispru
dence will not need for Its efficient
administration the destruction of
either the right or the means to
enforce it. the decision, in the case
at bar, as view it, brings US perilous.
ly near both results. Is this exagger
alton! What are the facts in the case
at bar as alleged in the petition,
aud which it is conceded mast be
assumed to be truel The complaint
which vas the foundation of the
eStradlhon proceedings, charged
against the. accused the crime of
murder on the Both of December,
1905, at Caldwell, in the county of
Canyon, state of Idaho, by killing one
Frank Steuneaberg, by throwing an
explosive bomb at and against his
person. The accused ayers in his
petition that he had not been in the
state OF loahe ia any way shape or
form tor period of more than ten
years prior to the acts of which he
complained, aud the governor of
Idaho knew accused had not been in
the state the day the murder was
committed nor at any time near that
day. A conspiracy is alleged between
the governor of the state of Idaho
and bis advisers, and that the COVER.
nor OF the state of Colorado took
part In the conspiracy the purpose
OF which was to avoid the constitution
OF the United States and the act of
congress made in pursuance thereof;
and 10 prevent the accused from
asserting his constitutional right
under clause 2, section 2. of artical
w. OF the constitution of the United
States and the act made pursuant
thereof. The manner in which the
alleged conspiracy had been executed
was SCI out IN detail, 1t was in effect
that the agent of the state of Idaho
arrived in Denver, Thursday, Feb.
ruary 1896, but it was agreed
between him and the officers Of Col.
Grads that the arrest of the accused
should not be made until some time
in the uight of Saturday, after
business hours-after the courts had
closed and judges and lawyers had
departed to their homes; that the
arrest should be kept a secret and the
body OF the accused should be. Gland.
estinely hurried out the state of Col
orado With all possible speed without
the knowledge of his friends or his
counsel; that he was at the usual place