History, 1838–1856, volume D-1 [1 August 1842–1 July 1843]

  • Source Note
  • Historical Introduction
Page 1409
image
<​October 20​> charged with Treason, Felony, or other crime; “it is sufficient if he be charged with the commission of crime, either by indictment found or by affidavit. Second ‘He must be a person who shall flee from justice and be found in another State.” [HC 5:173] It is not sufficient to satisfy this branch of the Constitution, that he should be “charged” with having fled from justice, unless he has actually fled from the State where the offence was committed to another State, the Governor of this State has no jurisdiction over his person and cannot deliver him up. When Mr. Smith is brought up on a Habeas Corpus, he will have a right, under the 3rd. Sec. of our Habeas Corpus Act, to introduce testimony and shew that the process upon which he is arrested was obtained by false pretence, that it is <​un​>true, that he fled from the State of—— , to evade being brought to justice there, for the crime of which he is charged he will have the right to place himself upon the platform of the Constitution of the , and say I am a Citizen of the State of : I have not fled from the State of or from the “justice” of that , on account of the commission of the crime with which I am charged. I am ready to prove that the charge of having fled from that is false, and I am not, therefore, subject under the Constitution of the to be delivered up to that for trial. You say in your letter to me that you doubt whether on a Habeas Corpus the Court would have a right to try the question whether Smith was in at the time of the Commission of the crime of which he is charged. To this I answer that upon a Habeas Corpus the Court would be bound to try the question, whether Smith fled from justice from to this ; the affidavit of is not conclusive on this point— it may be rebutted— unless Smith is a person who has fled from justice he is not subject to be delivered up,— under the express provisions of our own Habeas Corpus Act, he has a right to show that the affidavit is false and that the order for his arrest was obtained by false pretences. Again, the affidavit on its face was not sufficient to authorize the arrest of Smith, it is evasive and deceptive— it does not show that he fled from the State of to evade justice for the commission of the crime of which he is charged by .
Robert G. Williams, in the year 1835, was indicted in the State of Alabama for—— attempting to incite rebellion and insurrection in that State; he was demanded by the Governor of that State, of the of , and the requisition stated that he had fled from Justice— the of the State of () took notice that the said Williams was a Citizen of the State of , and had not fled from justice from Alabama, and on that ground alone refused to surrender him up. This was a stronger case than that of Smith’s as an Indictment had been found. puts his refusal upon the express ground that by the Constitution of the , the Gov[HC 5:174]ernor of one State had no right to demand, nor the Governor of another State a right to surrender up one of his Citizens unless he had fled from justice; and it was the right and duty of the Governor upon whom the demand was made to inquire into the fact whether he had fled from—— justice before he made the surrender. I have the book containing all the proceedings in this case of Williams: there are several other cases equally in point, and they all [p. 1409]
October 20 charged with Treason, Felony, or other crime; “it is sufficient if he be charged with the commission of crime, either by indictment found or by affidavit. Second ‘He must be a person who shall flee from justice and be found in another State.” [HC 5:173] It is not sufficient to satisfy this branch of the Constitution, that he should be “charged” with having fled from justice, unless he has actually fled from the State where the offence was committed to another State, the Governor of this State has no jurisdiction over his person and cannot deliver him up. When Mr. Smith is brought up on a Habeas Corpus, he will have a right, under the 3rd. Sec. of our Habeas Corpus Act, to introduce testimony and shew that the process upon which he is arrested was obtained by false pretence, that it is untrue, that he fled from the State of—— , to evade being brought to justice there, for the crime of which he is charged he will have the right to place himself upon the platform of the Constitution of the , and say I am a Citizen of the State of : I have not fled from the State of or from the “justice” of that , on account of the commission of the crime with which I am charged. I am ready to prove that the charge of having fled from that is false, and I am not, therefore, subject under the Constitution of the to be delivered up to that for trial. You say in your letter to me that you doubt whether on a Habeas Corpus the Court would have a right to try the question whether Smith was in at the time of the Commission of the crime of which he is charged. To this I answer that upon a Habeas Corpus the Court would be bound to try the question, whether Smith fled from justice from to this ; the affidavit of is not conclusive on this point— it may be rebutted— unless Smith is a person who has fled from justice he is not subject to be delivered up,— under the express provisions of our own Habeas Corpus Act, he has a right to show that the affidavit is false and that the order for his arrest was obtained by false pretences. Again, the affidavit on its face was not sufficient to authorize the arrest of Smith, it is evasive and deceptive— it does not show that he fled from the State of to evade justice for the commission of the crime of which he is charged by .
Robert G. Williams, in the year 1835, was indicted in the State of Alabama for—— attempting to incite rebellion and insurrection in that State; he was demanded by the Governor of that State, of the of , and the requisition stated that he had fled from Justice— the of the State of () took notice that the said Williams was a Citizen of the State of , and had not fled from justice from Alabama, and on that ground alone refused to surrender him up. This was a stronger case than that of Smith’s as an Indictment had been found. puts his refusal upon the express ground that by the Constitution of the , the Gov[HC 5:174]ernor of one State had no right to demand, nor the Governor of another State a right to surrender up one of his Citizens unless he had fled from justice; and it was the right and duty of the Governor upon whom the demand was made to inquire into the fact whether he had fled from—— justice before he made the surrender. I have the book containing all the proceedings in this case of Williams: there are several other cases equally in point, and they all [p. 1409]
Page 1409