New-York tribune., 1910-05-08
WON'T ASK FOR ARMOUR.
New Jersey Governor Not to
Seek Packers ExtradItlOn.
NO FUGITIVE, HE HOLDS
Prosecutor Garven May Also
Fail to Get Into State
Others Indicted.

Trenton. *. J.. May tSpeciaD.- -Gof ernoT
Fort denied to-day the application OF
Prosecutor Garven OF Hudson County FOR
q requisition for the eXtracirion of j Ogden
Armour. who is wanted 10 ansEcT An in
6ictTntnt charging him md scure Of other
directors OF beef packing companies with
conspiracy 70 raise the price OF meat and
other food products The refusal of the
Governor was based upon the ground that
Mr. Armour was not d fGsitiTe from justice
InGer The Indictment found against him 10y
the Hudson County Grand JuIy-
Tie decision in the Armour case will
carry sqi;l; IT, < is said Il refusal 6y the
Governor TO issue acquisitions for other
persons in the Nest under Indictment. The
Armour case was selected a test case,
and the hearing was given upon that alone
The Governor held that in the broadest
Interpretation the status of AR Armour
must depend upon his presence or absence
IN this state at the time alleged the
formation OF the unlawful combination or
agreement or at the time OF the overt act.
He showed that there was no eidence in
the case showing that Mr. Armour WAS
here 2t the time the overt acts were com
nlitted- He said that language in an in
dictnent sufficient for purposes of trial
might be too indefinite and general 10 form
a basis Tor an extradition charge. and
added:
IL all the cases which | have const1-
cred IN which II was attempted to show
mat the presence OF d certain person with
in state has reference to participation in
a criminal act. where on one side il was
attempted TO -impute participation in q
criminal act and on the other 10 show
the course of business in no way connect
ed with the criminal act The facts ap-
complete, sufficient al any rate TO raise a
question argumentatiVe!Y as 70 whether
such presence was or was not in fact un
der sucn circumstances that participation
IN a criminal act was at least q reaSond bic
In the presen. instance the proof is bar
zen OF any facts from which an inference
could be drawn as 10 the purpose of the
visit of Mr.. Armour 10 Foboken. except
that Of taking passage upon the trans
atlantic vessel and OF returning therefrom-
To attach 10 such condition of presence
within this state the inference OF particl-
patton in the criminal act charged in the
Indictment is il seems TO me, impossible
in view OF The cases in which the courts
have refused 10. consider the presence Of
individual within state as connected
with a criminal act when the details of
such visits, their duration and their char
acter have been clearly exhibited.
II was suggested at the hearing on this
application that the Governor would not
treat il as he would an application for the
surrender OF an alleged fugitive from JUS
Iice from another state upon requisitlon
upon him by the Governor Of that other
state. ! am al loss to see the difference
in principle. The same rule OF law : hould
control applying Governor in issuing
requisition that governs the action of
Governor in Surrenderin- fugitive upon
the demand OF another state II WuriG ne
useless to issue 4 requiSitiDn upon the GOV
ernOr Of another state with which he would
not be legally justified in complying
Prosecutor Garven admitted he vas dis
appointed 1t the finding Of the Governor
hut declared the adverse decision had not
affected his determination tc continue the
fight 4 have plan Of campaign mapped
out, but cannot reveal it now he said.