Americus times-recorder. [volume] (Americus, Ga.) 1891-current, 1918-08-02
ABOUT ExTRADITION LAWS.

state (the state to which the fugi-
tive has fled) sees fit to let it be a
farce The United States Govern
ment has printed elaborate regula-
tons for extraditing defendants &C
cused OF crime. and nearly every
state has passed laws to effectuate
thu rendition OF criminals to the
state where the crime was committed.
Indeed. the Supreme court at Wash
ington has held that although the
crime was committed long enough
ago to be outlawed by the statute of
limitations. still the defendant must
be returned to the demanding state.
But Notwithstanding all these stat
utes and decisions, they can all be
nullifed by the simple mo" Of the
governor of any state in the union
when extradition Is sought The ex-
tradition law is probably the only
law on the books that solemnly sets
out the method of procedure with the
certainty staring it in the face that
it may all come to nothing through
the within, mistake, ignorance or cor
ruption of the governor of the state
which is asked to return a defend
ant for trial. And it is probably the
only law on the books where issues
of such multitude can be decided
without any recourse on the part Of
the state where the crime was com
mitted, by appeal or otherwise.
For illustration, the state OF New
York can subpoena and bring into
the state of New York a witness from
Pennsylvania, New Jersey or Con-
necticut to prove a crime, but the
state of New York can't make either
the state of Pennsylvania, New Jer-
sey or Connecticut arrest the man
who committed the crime and deliver
him to the state of New York to be
tried.
The great men who built the Con-
situation evidently INDUCED the pre-
sumption that every state executive
would in all cases see his duty
clearly and do it fearlessly. That
this was a violent presumption, facts
have demonstrated. This being del
onstrated, what is the remedy? 1t
Is either to entirely rewrite the Extra
dition Law of the Constitution, or TO
so amend 1t as to provide that the
state seeking the return of man
accused Of crime to the state where
the crime was committed, for trial
there, shall, in case of an adverse de-
cision by a misguided, unintelligent
or venal governor, have the right to
appeal such decision to the Distrio
Court of the United States for the
district in which the defendant is
found in the state to which he he
fed.
This appeal should, if necessary,
go all the way to the Supreme
Court of the United States. This
gives the state no right that the de
PENDANT does not now have, because
he can by writ of habeas corpus
either in the state or the federal
courts test the entire question of the
right of tn state to which he has fed
to return him to the state where the
crime vas committed.
II might happen that in time of
g eat Political excitement fanatic
might shoot down a president of the
United S:%ics s1d escape to an ad-
toiaiug state waarc the great MAORI
~ belonged to a different political
party, the governor of which might
refuse to return the criminal to the
state where the crime was commit
ted. This fs an extreme case, but is
not impossible under the Extradition
Law as it now stands.
TIE RTTTON INDUSTpV