UK HOME

ExploreUK home

Collections: 
0-9 | A | B | C | D | E | F | G | H | I | J | K | L | M | N | O | P | Q | R | S | T | U | V | W | X | Y | Z

30 > Page 30 of Argument of J. Proctor Knott in re Varney Hatfield et al., on habeas corpus before the United States district court of Kentucky, February 28, 1888

30 West Virginia and bring them to Kentucky. Julian disregarded the authority he had in his pocket and kidnaped Ker at Callao. Phillips, without regard to the extradition papers which had been issued by the Governor of Kentucky, forcibly seized these parties in West Vir- ginia. .Julian kept Ker a close prisoner, between decks, perhaps, during the voyage to Honolulu, and thence to San Francisco. So those parties were held close prisoners by their captors until they were taken into custody by the sheriff' of Pike county under the authority of a regular warrant. When Ker's foot touched the wharf of San Franeisco the warrant of the Governor of California was served upon hiu and he was in the grasp of the law, and by due process of law he was held until tried and convicted of his crime. If there was "4 dle process of law" in that case there has been the same due pro- cess of law in this. I forbear further comment, sir. If this authoritative utterance of the highest tribunal known to the Constitution of our country, upon a solenin adjudication of the precise point in issue, does not settle it conclusively against the claim of the prisoners here, it can be done bv no argument of mine. RANSC1IER'S CASE. If the logic of the cases fronm which I have quoted is sound, it fol- lows that the principle settled in Ranscher's case (119 United States, 471)), to which my attention has been called, can find no possible ap- plication. here. The decision in that case turned upon a question of goord faith on the part of the United States towards the Government of Great Britain, in pursuance of the extradition treaty between them, under which he ha(l been brought to this country, and the proper con- str-ction of Section 5275 of the Reevised Statutes of the United States, which it was claimed guaranteed to him the right, if acquitted of the crimne for which he was extradited, to a reasonable time thereafte'r in which to depart out of the United States before he should be liable to arrest or detention for any other offense. But that question is in no- wise even remotely connected with this case. The 11anscher case and the Ker case were considered by the Su- preme Court together, and the distinction between them so distinctly pointed out, in the opinion of the Ker case, that I may well be con- tente(l to let Mr. Justice Miller, who delivered the opinions in both cases, answer the points here in his own language. He says: " In the case of the United States against Ranscher, just decided, and considered with this the effect of extradition proceedings under a