Arizona republican., 1911-05-02
The ExtraditiOn of John McNamara.

The EStraditIon of John McNamara.
 Although the supreme court of the United States, in the habeas corpus hearing in behalf of Mover, Haywood and Pettibone, and in the case of Hyatt and of others previously, clear ly stated the law of extradition, it is not strange that there is much con fusion in the public mind in refer ence to the alleged kidnapping" of John J. McNamara and his brother The leaders of the labor unions who assert that the proceedings were "iI- legaf are wrong in their conclusions, and the able attorneys for the de- fendants have been prompt in saving that it is not worth while for the prisoners to Seek liberty through writs of habeas corpus-there is no possibility that the federal courts would order their return to the states in which they were arrested.
 And yet, contradictory as the state ment may appear, the labor leaders are right in asserting that John J. McNamara, at any rate, probably could have evaded extradition if he had been afforded an opportunity to apply for release under a writ Of habeas corpus.
 This apparently confused state of facts arises from a defect in the con- stitution of the United States. Article " provides:
 "A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice, and be found in another state, shall on de- mand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be de- livered up to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime"
 There is no provision in the con- stitution to cover the case of per son who, while remaining in a given state, commits a crime in another state It is charged that John J. McNamara, the secretary of the structural iron workers union, con- spired with and persuaded his brother and others to destroy the building of the Los Angeles Times with dynamite. he meanwhile remaining at his home in Indianapolis. If he is guilty as thus charged, he is punishable with death for murder, the same as if he had committed the crime in person.
 But this and all similar cases pre- sent to the authorities this difficulty: John J. McNamara did not flee from the justice" of California Therefore, if permitted to apply to a federal court for release under a writ of habeas corpus, he could have shown that he was not a fugitive from Cali fornia. Very possibly he would have been released upon such showing. nd the authorities of California would have been helpless.
 Accordingly, it was up to the au- thorities of the two states-California and Indiana-to extradite McNamara under the regular form of state laws without giving him a chance to ap- peal to the federal courts on the ground that he was being deprived of his rights as a citizen of the United States. If the extradition could be accomplished without inter- ference from a federal court, the au- thorities knew that they would be relieved of worry as soon as McNa- mara could be landed in California, for then the jurisdiction of federal authority would cease, under the ruling of the supreme court of the United States that it will not inquire into the manner in which the az grieved state acquired possession ot the prisoner.
 The principle was so clearly stated