Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

§ 108. Abduction and Forcible Return of Fugitives from Justice. It has been decided1o that where a fugitive has been forcibly abducted, without being extradited, from a State to which he had fled to the State from which he had fled, neither the Federal Government, nor the State whose peace has thus been violated, nor the abducted one, has legal redress, unless, indeed, the governor of the State to which he has been taken is willing to return him, and to extradite the persons participating in the abduction. The case of Mahon grew out of the following facts. Mahon, charged with murder in the State of Kentucky, fled to West Virginia. During a correspondence between the governors of the two States regarding extradition, he was forcibly abducted from the latter State and taken to the former State, and there confined in jail pending his trial for murder. Thereupon the governor of West Virginia, on behalf of that State, presented in a District Court of the United States a petition stating these facts, and adding that he had made a requisition upon the governor of Kentucky that Mahon be released and returned to West Virginia, but that such requisition had been refused. Therefore, a writ of habeas corpus was prayed directed to the keeper of the jail where Mahon was confined. A similar petition was filed by Mahon himself. Upon return of the writ the motion for discharge was denied by the court; appeal was taken to the Circuit Court, where the order of the lower court was affirmed; and from this order an appeal was taken to the Supreme Court. In its opinion, affirming the action of the lower tribunals, the Supreme Court say: "If the States of the Union were possessed of an absolute sovereignty, instead of a limited one, they could demand of each other reparation for an unlawful invasion of their territory and the surrender of parties abducted, and of parties committing the offense, and in case of refusal to comply with the demand, could resort to reprisals, or take any other measures that they might deem necessary as redress for the past and security for the future. But the States of the Union are not absolutely sovereign. Their sovereignty is qualified and limited by the conditions of the federal

10 Mahon v. Justice, 127 U. S. 700; 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1204; 32 L. ed. 283.

Constitution. They cannot declare war or authorize reprisals on other States. Their ability to prevent the forcible abduction of persons from their territory consists solely in their power to punish all violations of their criminal laws committed within it, whether by their own citizens or by the citizens of other States.

If such violators have escaped from the jurisdiction of the State invaded, their surrender can be secured upon proper demand on the executive of the State to which they have fled. The surrender of the fugitives in such cases, to the State whose laws have been violated, is the only aid provided by the laws of the United States for the punishment of depredations and violence committed in one State by intruders and lawless bands from another State. The offenses committed by such parties are against the State; and the laws of the United States merely provide the means by which their presence can be secured in case they have fled from its justice. No mode is provided by which a person unlawfully abducted from one State to another can be restored to the State from which he was taken, if held upon any process of law for offenses against the State to which he has been carried. If not thus held he can, like any other person deprived of his liberty, obtain his release on habeas corpus. Whether Congress might not provide for the compulsory restoration to the State of parties wrongfully abducted from its territory upon application of the parties, or of the State, and whether such provision would not greatly tend to the public peace along the borders of the several States, are not matters for present consideration. It is sufficient now that no means for such redress through the courts of the United States have as yet been provided." 11

11 Justice Bradley was not convinced by this argument. He said: "I dissent from the judgment of the court in this case. In my opinion, the writ of habeas corpus was properly issued, and the prisoner, Mahon, should have been discharged and permitted to return to West Virginia. He was kidnapped and carried into Kentucky in plain violation of the Constitution of the United States, and is detained there in continued violation thereof. It is true, he is charged with having committed a crime in Kentucky. But the Constitution provides a peaceable remedy for procuring the surrender of persons charged with crime and fleeing into another State. This provision of the Constitution has two objects; the procuring possession of the offender, and the prevention

In Pettibone v. Nichols the court held that because the surrendered one had been given no opportunity at the time of his arrest to test in the courts of the surrendering State the legality of the extradition, no federal right had been violated. "That he had no reasonable opportunity to present these facts before being taken from Colorado," said the court, "constitutes no legal reason why he should be discharged from the custody of the Idaho authorities. No obligation was imposed by the Constitution or laws of the United States upon the agent of Idaho to so of irritation between the States, which might arise from giving asylum to each other's criminals, and from violently invading each other's territory to capture them. It clearly implies that there shall be no resort to force for this purpose. The Constitution has abrogated, and the States have surrendered, all right to obtain redress from each other by force. The Constitution was made to establish justice' and 'insure domestic tranquillity;' and to attain this end as between the States themselves, the judicial power was extended to controversies between two or more States,' and they were enjoined to deliver up to each other fugitives from justice when demanded, and even fugitives from service. This manifest care to provide peaceable means of redress between them is utterly irreconcilable with any right to redress themselves by force and violence; and, of course, what is unconstitutional for the States is unconstitutional for their citizens. . . . A requisition would not apply. That is provided for by the extradition of fugitives from justice. It would apply for the delivery up of the kidnappers, but not for the restoration of their victim. It is a special constitutional remedy, addressed by the executive of one State to the executive of another, imposing a constitutional duty of extradition when properly made in a proper case. But the present case is a different one. It is not the surrender of a fugitive from justice which is sought, but the surrender of a citizen unconstitutionally abducted and held in custody. There must be some remedy for such a wrong. It cannot be that the States, in surrendering their right of obtaining redress by military force and reprisals, have no remedy whatever. It was suggested by the counsel that the State of West Virginia might sue the State of Kentucky for damages. This suggestion could not have been seriously made. No; the remedy adopted was the proper Habeas corpus is not only the proper legal remedy, but a most salutary one. It is calculated to allay strife and irritation between the States by securing a judicial and peaceful decision of the controversy."

one.

In Ker v. Illinois (119 U. S. 436; 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 225; 30 L. ed. 421) the plaintiff urged that in violation of law he had been seized in a foreign country and forcibly brought against his will into the United States, in violation of a treaty between the United States and the foreign country, and in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. The court held, in a unanimous opinion, that notwithstanding the illegal methods pursued in bringing the accused within the State, there had been no violation of a federal right.

12 203 U. S. 192; 27 Sup. Ct. Rep. 111; 51 L. ed. 148.

time the arrest of the petitioner, and so conduct his deportation from Colorado as to afford him a convenient opportunity before some judicial tribunal sitting in Colorado, to test the question whether he was a fugitive from justice, and, as such, liable, under the act of Congress, to be conveyed to Idaho for trial there."

In this case it was decided also that the fact that the illegal abduction from the State was by persons acting under the authority of that State did not take the case out of the operation of the doctrine laid down in the Mahon case.13

§ 109. Trial for Offenses Other than Those for which Extradited. In United States v. Rauscher1 was considered the question. whether a fugitive extradited from a foreign country in pursuance of a treaty between that country and the United States covering the crime charged, could, after coming into the custody of the United States, be tried upon another minor offense not covered by the treaty. The court held that he could not be.1

15

In Lascelles v. Georgia, 16 however, it was held that, as to fugitives from one State of the Union to another, this may be done. "The fallacy of the argument [that this may not be done]," said the court, "lies in the assumption that the States of the Union occupy toward each other, in respect to fugitives from justice, the relation of foreign nations, in the same sense in which the General Government stands toward independent sovereignties on that subject; and in the further assumption that a fugitive from justice acquires in the State to which he may flee some state or personal right to protection, improperly called a right of asylum, which secures to him exemption from trial and punishment for a crime committed in another State, unless such crime is made the special object or ground of his rendition. The sole object of the provision of the Constitution and act of Congress to carry it into effect is to secure the surrender of persons accused of crime who have fled from the justice of a

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]

13 Justice McKenna dissented as to this.

14 119 U. S. 407; 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 234; 30 L. ed. 425.

15 Chief Justice Waite dissented.

See also Cosgrove v. Winney, 174 U. S.

64; 19 Sup. Ct. Rep. 598; 43 L. ed. 897.

16 148 U. S. 537; 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 687; 37 L. ed. 549.

State, whose laws they are charged with violating. Neither the Constitution, nor the act of Congress providing for the rendition of fugitives upon proper requisition being made, confers, either expressly or by implication, any right or privilege upon such fugitives under and by virtue of which they can assert, in the State to which they are returned, exemption from trial for any criminal act done therein." 17

§ 110. Who is a "Fugitive."

"To be a fugitive from justice . . it is not necessary that the party charged should have left the State in which the crime. is alleged to have been committed, after an indictment found, or for the purpose of avoiding a prosecution anticipated or begun, but simply that, having within a State committed that which by its laws constitutes a crime, when he sought to be subjected to

17 The opinion continues: The case of United States v. Rauscher has no application to the question under consideration. because it proceeded upon the ground of a right given impliedly by the terms of a treaty between the United States and Great Britain, as well as expressly by the acts of Congress in the case of a fugitive surrendered to the United States by a foreign nation. That treaty which specified the offenses that were extraditable, and the statutes of the United States passed to carry it and other like treaties into effect, constituted the supreme law of the land, and were construed to exempt the extradited fugitive from trial for any other offense than that mentioned in the demand for surrender. There is nothing in the Constitution or statutes of the United States in reference to interstate rendition of fugitives from justice which can be regarded as establishing any compact between the States of the Union, such as the Ashburton treaty contains, limiting their operation to particular or designated offenses. On the contrary, the provisions of the organic and statutory law embrace crimes and offenses of every character and description punishable by the laws of the State where the forbidden acts are committed. It is questionable whether the States could constitutionally enter into any agreement or stipulation with each other for the purpose of defining or limiting the offenses for which fugitives would or should be surrendered. But it is settled by the decision of this court that, except in the case of a fugitive surrendered by a foreign government, there is nothing in the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States which exempts an offender, brought before the courts of a State for an offense against its laws, from trial and punishment, even though brought from another State by unlawful violence or by abuse of legal process." Citing Ker. v. Illinois, 119 U. S. 436; 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 225; 30 L. ed. 421; Mahon v. Justice, 127 U. S. 700; 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1204; 32 L. ed. 283; Cook v. Hart, 146 U. S. 183; 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 40; 46 L. ed. 934.

« PředchozíPokračovat »