Chung Kin Tow v. Flynn

• Decision Date: 19 November 1914
• Docket Number: 1088.
• Citation: 218 F. 64
• Court: U.S. Court of Appeals — First Circuit
• Parties: CHUNG KIN TOW v. FLYNN.

218 F. 64

CHUNG KIN TOW v. FLYNN.

No. 1088.

United States Court of Appeals, First Circuit.

November 19, 1914

Herbert Parker, of Boston, Mass. (Thomas J. Barry and Herbert F Callahan, both of Boston, Mass., on the brief), for appellant.

Leon R Eyges, of Boston, Mass. (Thomas J. Boynton, of Boston, Mass on the brief), for appellee.

Before PUTNAM, DODGE, and BINGHAM, Circuit Judges.

PUTNAM Circuit Judge.

This is an appeal from the decree of the United States District Court, denying a writ of habeas corpus, applied for by Tow against a warrant of the Governor of Massachusetts directing the removal of the appellant to answer a complaint charging murder, pending in the county of Cook and state of Illinois. The observations of the counsel for the appellant are wholesome and carefully expressed, but they are mainly of a general character. There are few propositions requiring our attention.

The proceedings before the Governor of Massachusetts were very protracted. It is apparent that the principal question was one of the identity of the appellant, who now appears under the name of Chung Kin Tow. The requisition of the Governor of Illinois was for Harry Eng Hong. The common controversy which so often puzzles the courts with reference to the identity of Chinamen was, in some of the stages before the Governor of Massachusetts, troublesome; but it is now all out of the way by the appellant's admission.

Also it is now admitted as follows:

'The appellant concedes, upon review by petition for habeas corpus, that the warrant of the Governor is prima facie evidence that all necessary legal prerequisites have been complied with, and, if the proceedings before and by the Governor so appear to be regular, it is conclusive evidence of the right to remove the prisoner to the state wherefrom he has fled.'

This is a proper and wholesome admission, which is in accordance with the practice in extradition cases. Indeed, the proceedings upon extradition cases are summary, and, for the most part, very simple, and extensive conflicts with reference thereto should cease. As in this case the warrant of the Governor of Massachusetts shows on its face that all the necessary legal prerequisites have been complied with, as stated in the admission, this is conclusive, as further stated in the admission, unless the proceedings before the Governor appear not to have been regular.

This attempted reservation probably has reference to the claim that the Governor of Massachusetts acted on the extradition papers from the demanding state, and on a report made by the Attorney General of Massachusetts. If it had appeared that the Governor of Massachusetts acted only on the report of the Attorney General,...