Atlanta semi-weekly journal. (Atlanta, Ga.) 1898-1920, 1911-06-23
GOV, BROWN DENIES
REQU|S|T|ON FOR
THOMAS B. FIELDER
Governor Takes Action Imme-
diateIy Following Hearing on
ThurSday--Says He Doubted
RequiSition From First


requisition at las o'clock Thursday after
noon. Immediately at the conclusion OF
the hearing.
In stating his refusal, the governor said
that he had referredt he papers soon
after he received them from Governor.
Blease, of South Carolina, to Attorney
General Hewlette A. Hall, of Georgia
and that the attorney general discovered
practically the same defects in them az
were pointed out by the opposition Thurs.
day.
AT II o'clock Thursday morning Gov.
ernor Brown began his hearing of tho
pros and cons upon the requisition frons
Gov. Cole Blease, Of South Carolina, for
the custody of Hon. Thomas B. Fielder,
member of the Atlanta law firm of AM
derson. Fielder, Rountree & Wilson.
The charge against Mr.. Fielder. as stat 1
ed In the requisition, is that in 1904 hs
attempted to bride H. H. Evans, a MEM
Der of the board Of control of the South
Carolina dispensary commission, and til /
so doing conspired to cheat and defraui
the state of South Carolina.
Mr.. Folders answer was a fiat denial
of the charge, and the Offering of a
counter charge that Governor Blease Isl
actuated by malice and spite. The der
Tense was further that a South Carolinsl
grand Jury has been in session in New.
berry county since the reQuisition was
granted. refused to indict Mr.. Fielder for
the offense charged. and that the redui-
sition is based solely upon an msuTr
ported warrant
Some weeks ago Governor Blease ar,
nounoed that he would honor no nore
acquisitions from Governor Brown, cr.
Georgia. as they were being made simpl.
to enforce the payment Of debts.
The hearing began by Spencer R. Al.
kinson. one Of the attorneys representing:
Mr.. Fielder. Introducing Alex King. wh,
presented objections to the requisitiorl
papers against Mr.. Fielder.
MR. KINGS OBJECTION.
Among the prime requisites TO the re-
moval OF a man to another state for
trial." he said. 'is an affidavit setting
forth the offense alleged against him.
This is necessary for the executive au.-
thorizing the requisition to know that this
charge that has been made is based OIL
a certain, unequivocal allegation
"The warrant that has been issued
against Mr.. Fielder Is merely vague. 1T
recites that Mr.. Kelley on information
or belief charges that Mr.. Fielder was
guilty of bribery No indication Is given
of the source of this information or be-
lief The date of the offense is indif
nfTelY given as some IIIfl1 IN OCLDDtLa III
1904 The amount of the bride is not IN
dicated and the purpose of the alleged
bride is almost as indefinite. It Is stated
merely that this supposed bride was to
induce H. II. Evans to vote or pass Judg-
followed by George Johnston, of New
berry, who also spoke in Mr.. Felder's IA
vor.
LAWYERS AT HEARING
The following lawyers attended the
never says what.
BASED ON CONCLUSIONS
sThe entire charge is based merely on
conclusions"
He read several decisions to sustain
his contention ito show that the charges
against Mr.. Fielder are insufficient TO
warrant Mr. Felder's being removed to
South Carolina for trial.
The incompleteness of the charges
against Mr. Fielder was further explained
by p. H. Brewster and by j. ID. Kiipat-
rick Each commended that unless Mr..
Fielder had been in South Carolina at the
time the offense charged against him
was committed, that he would not be
fugitive from justice and that he would
not be extraditable.
Mr.. Fitzpatrick reviewed several dec
sions to establish the contention that
an Individual shall not be extradfted urE-
less reasonable proof of his guilt is fur
nished, unless ID is proved that he ives
present in the state to which he Is to be
extradited at the time of the offenBe
charged, and unless 1t is proved that he
has fed from justice
NEVER BEEN INDICTED.
He brought out the fact that the only
charge against Mr.. Fielder IS In q war
rant, and that he has never been iIi-
xrwT& he frF-
tense alleged against him Is said 10
have been committed six years ago.
Mr.. Atkinson raised the objection TO-
the reduisition papers that certificates
IL contained had not been attested and
that no proof was furnished that they
were authentic. An act Of congress wss
produced which requires that records
presented by one state to another shall
be attested by judge and a clerk or
his court.
Measured by this act of congress.
he declared. there is no authenticated
record in these requisition papers"
AFFIDAVIT NECESSARY.
Mr.. Atkinson further discussed the me-
cessity of requisition papers being accom-
panied by a definite affidavit; and pre-
sented recent ruling of the supreme
court of Georgia in which it is held that
a
unless it contains such an affidavit.
Under this record he declared. lay
ing his hand on the requisition papers,
Eve. the Bar association, do not thirlk
this requisition should be honored."
Mr. Atkinson's statement concluded the
opening objections to the requisition, and
w. A. Holman, of Charleston, special at
torney for the state of South Carolina,
rose to present his reasons why the re-
QUESTION should be allowed. Before lie
began. Mr. Fielder demanded to know by
whom he was employed and who was re-
sponsibIe for the charges in the requisi-
ton papers.
EMPLOYED BY GOV. BLEASE.
Mr.. Holman answered that he was enl-
ployed by Governor Blease to represent
south Carolina, but that he didn't know
who caused the charges against Mr.
Fielder
The seal of the state of South CaroIxa,
he maintained, was sufficient to esta0<,
lish the authenticity of the requisition
paperss and, In face of this seal. the
contentious that the requisition papers
were not properly attested were not just
flied. He insisted that sufficient afr
davits were contained in the papers.
Several times, he declared, that, as ia
as he was concerned, there was no pee