The Pensacola journal. (Pensacola, Fla.) 1898-1985, 1910-06-23


the states, which might arise from giving
asylum to each others criminals, and
from violently invading each others ter
plies that there shall be no resort to
force for this purpose. The Constitution
has abrogated and the states have surren-
dered all right to obtain redress by force
not receive narrow and contracted
meaning. but are presumed TO have been
used in a broad sense with = view OF
The affidavit. In substance, charges that
the three defendants, on the 3lst day of
May, 1910. within this district, conspirsd
the United States, residing in this dis
trict. of the free exercise and enjoyment
Of right and privilege secured ,n to hin, him
ted States, being the privilege and right
Georgia for trial there on a charge Of
crime in no other manner than that pro-
vided by said Constitutional provision,
and the said laws passed to give effect
thereto.
The prosecution of this cause involves
grave constitutional questions and a de-
termination of the legal phases Is fraught
with much difficulty. 1t is of serious i'm
port to the defendants, Of considerable
Importance to the Government and the
effect of It's ultimate determination will
be to either deny or extend the protec-
ton of the Federal authority to a class of
citizens who are periodically the victims
of irregular, and too ofetn lawlsss. acts
on the part Of those charged WITH their
apprehension and extradition. The alb
sence of precedent in the inferior and
supreme court records will make the final
decision of this case a pioneer into fed
Of law heretofore untouched. except In
cidentally.
A determination Of this case hinges en-
tirely upon one main proposition. Does
and the laws passed to give effect thereto,
declare to- or create in the individual
citizen. right or privilege that. he may
tlon to the executive authority Of another
state, shall be in pursuance Of said con-
stitutfonal provision, and In no other
ton ton solely intended end to create an obi
CATION upon the executive of each state
to surrender fugitives from justice and
to provide, for their guidance only, the
In the light of all the authorities, this
question may be answered in only lim-
tied way.
supreme court of the United States that
the accused acquires no right Of asylum
in the state to which he fees. which he
can assert in the state where the crime
is alleged to have been committed, by
virtue of this clause Of the Constitution.
Pettibone vs.. Nicols. 293 y. s. 21o-
VS.. Georgia, 14S U. S. 542; Kerr vs.. Him
ois, 119 Y. S. 4S6, and Cook VS.. Hart, LAG
In the state to which the fugitive has
been illegally removed, even when this
was accomplished by mob violence while
exTadition proceedings were pending. as
relief will be denied the kidnapped fugi-
person uniawf,hly abducted from one
state from which he was taken. if held
upon by process of law for an offense
against the state to which he was carried,
the courts of the United States has yet
been provided; he must answer the
charge, and he cannot even successfully
interpose a plea in abatement upon any
constitutional ground, as these decisions
hold he has no right to an asylum In the
surrenderlng state: protected by this
upon which the judgment in all OF these
cases rest is that when d criminal is
brought, or is in fact within the jurfs-
diction and custody of a state, charged
may, as far as the Constitution and laws
of the United States are concerned, pro-
coed against him for that crime, and need
not enquire as to the particular method
employed to bring him into the state.
Pettibone VS.. Nichold, supra. It will ap
pear from an analysis of these decisions
ritorial limits of the state in which the
crime was committed, he is absolutely
subject to its jurisdiction to try him for
assert no right in that state under Sec
ton 2 of Article " of the Constitution
Of the United States, which any court is
Turning from this phase of the case
to consideration of any right the fugi-
tive may asert in the state from which
1t Is sought to remove him. under this
clause of the Constitution, 1 find the
cases much more involved. Quoting from
in re Strauss. 1877 U. S. 324. Courts will
the extradition of person to answer a
charge of crime ignoranty or wantonly
made"
from one state TO another bY virtue of
this provision Of the Constitution, unless
"a he is charged in one state with
fled from Justice 60 demand Is made
for his delivery to the state wherein he
is charged with crime. If either of these
affords no warrant for the restraint of
the liberty of any person and a
claim that a detention is unlawful be-
crime within the meaning of the pro-
visions of the Constitution regulating in
terestate extradition =" involves the
vs.. Greasy. 210 u. s. 400; Creamer VS..
Comingore, III u. s. 45s.
upon a charge OF violation Of the law.
to be protected against lawless violence
arises out Of the creation and establish
national government, paramount and
supreme within its sphere, and this right
OF the prisoner is a right secured to him
ted States, United states VS.. Logan, 144
L. s. 293.' This case arose out OF an
assault upon a prisoner while in custody
of United States marshal, and did not
involve a consideration of extradition pro-
ceedings.
The extradition of criminals Is gov
erned by the Constitution and laws of
the United States. and state officers and
their agents are compelled to rely upon
federal statutes to do the acts required
thereby. Elk parte Mexican, s Hughes
(U. s. 2S. State vs. Justus, "a Mimi.
237; Elk parte Smith, 8 Mclean, 121.
State legislation is merely in aid Of the
federal enactments. FIX parte Ammons,
81 Ohio State SIS. Commonwealth VS..
Johnson. IL c. CT. 263; EX parte Butler,
is Albany Law Journal, 500.
The fact that many federal courts have
assumed jurisdiction in haheas corpus to
enquire into the legality of the restraint
Of persons in custody under interstate
rendition proceedings. suggests an en-
quiry into the general ground of juris-
diction of such courts to issue this writ.
Section 1853. r. S. U. provides:
THE writ of habeaS corpus shall in no
case extend to a prisoner in Jail unless
where he is in custody for an act
done or omitted in pursuance of a law
of the United States " or is In Gus
tody Of in violation of the Constitution
or Of a law or treaty Of the United
States"
And applying this power thus conferred,
the supreme court says: "Habeas corpus
Is an appropriate proceeding for deter
mining whether one held under an ex-
tradition warrant is a fugitive from jus