APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.
THE appellant was indicted in the Supreme Court of New York, county of Erie, for the crime of grand larceny, first degree, alleged to have been committed in that county on the eighteenth day of May, 1904.
Upon that indictment a warrant of arrest was issued but the accused was not arrested, for the reason that he was not found within the State.
Then the District Attorney of Erie County applied to the Governor of New York for a requisition upon the Governor of Massachusetts for Appleyard as a fugitive from justice. The application was based upon the above indictment and numerous accompanying affidavits, stating, among other things, that the accused was then in Massachusetts. A requisition was accordingly made upon the Governor of that Commonwealth for the apprehension of Appleyard and his delivery to a named agent of New York, who was authorized to receive and convey him to the latter State, to be there dealt with according to law. With that requisition went properly authenticated copies of all the papers which had been submitted to the Governor of New York by the District Attorney of Erie County.
The Governor of Massachusetts received the requisition and pursuant to the statutes of that Commonwealth referred it to the Attorney General for examination and report. Giving the accused full opportunity to be heard and to introduce
evidence, of which he availed himself, that officer examined the case and reported that the requisition was in regular and proper form and that there was no sufficient reason why it should not be honored. The Governor thereupon issued a warrant for the arrest of Appleyard and his delivery to the agent of New York to be taken to that State, the officer who should execute the warrant being required to give the accused such opportunity to sue out a writ of habeas corpus as was prescribed by the laws of Massachusetts in such cases. Appleyard having been arrested applied for a writ of habeas corpus to the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. This fact is stated in the return of the officer holding the accused and is not denied. That court, after hearing an argument, denied the application and remanded the petitioner to the custody of the agent of New York to be held in accordance with the warrant issued by the Governor of Massachusetts.
The accused then applied to the Circuit Court of the United States for a writ of habeas corpus, alleging that the warrant of the Governor of Massachusetts and the order for his delivery to the agent of New York were issued without authority of law and contrary to the Constitution and laws as well of the United States as of Massachusetts, and "especially contrary to sec. 2, art. 4, of the Constitution of the United States and of sec. 5278 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, in that your petitioner is not a fugitive from justice." The writ was issued and a return was made of the above facts.
At the hearing in the Circuit Court the accused requested a ruling that on the evidence it did not appear that, within the meaning of the Constitution and laws of the United States, he was a fugitive from justice, and, also, that he should be discharged from custody unless it appeared positively, by a preponderance of proof, that he "consciously fled from justice when he left the State of New York." Those requests were denied. But the court granted a request that the finding by the Governor of Massachusetts as a fact that the accused was a fugitive from justice was not conclusive. The court refused
to find, as facts, that the acts of Appleyard did not constitute a crime under the laws of New York; that no crime was committed by him in that State; and that Appleyard was not in New York on May 18, 1904, the date of the alleged crime. It consequently discharged the writ of habeas corpus. From that order the present appeal was prosecuted.
It can not be said that the appellent has not had ample opportunity to test the question whether his detention was in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States. He has had three hearings upon that question; first, before the executive authorities of Massachusetts, then before the Supreme Judicial Court of that Commonwealth, and finally before the Circuit Court of the United States. Upon each occasion he insisted that, within the meaning of the Constitution and laws of the United States, he could not be regarded as a fugitive from justice. The decision at each hearing was adverse to that contention and, unless this court reverses the judgment of the Circuit Court, he must stand his trial upon the charge that he committed a crime against the laws of New York.In view of the history of this case from the time of the demand upon the Governor of Massachusetts for the surrender of the appellant, this court should hesitate, by ...