The British Ambassador to
the Secretary of State.
British
Embassy,
Washington
,
June 22,
1906
.
No. 114.]
Sir: I have the honor to acknowledge the
receipt of your memorandum of the 4th of June, regarding the case of
Arthur McIntire, who has been imprisoned in the United States for a
nonextraditable offense, after he had been brought back to this country
on a charge of embezzlement.
I note that in order to prevent as far as possible a recurrence of abuses
of extradition process the Department of State has sent to the governors
of the various States and to the Attorney-General a circular regarding
future applications for extradition addressed to the Secretary of
State.
I have to thank you for sending me a copy of this circular. It will be
transmitted to His Majesty’s Government, who have asked for a
report.
With regard to the particular case in point, I wish, in the first place,
to correct a misapprehension which appears to have arisen in this
embassy regarding the facts. It does not seem to be the case that the
prisoner, although surrendered for one offense, was tried for
another.
Apparently he was surrendered on a charge of embezzlement, which was an
extraditable offense, and then agreed to undergo a term of imprisonment
to which he had previously been sentenced for using the United States
mails with intent to defraud, which was not an extraditable offense, the
charge of embezzlement being dropped or dismissed.
I inclose a copy of the prisoner’s statement, omitting irrelevant
portions. It supports the natural surmise that the prisoner’s agreement
to undergo a term of imprisonment was voluntary only in a limited
sense.
With regard to your suggestion that the appropriate remedy would be for
the prisoner to apply for a writ of habeas corpus whereby his rights
could be judicially determined, I would observe that, as I understand
it, the prisoner was not sent to jail by order of the court before which
he appeared to answer the charge of embezzlement, nor directly by order
of any court, but by order of the United States [Page 787] district attorney, who, unless I am
mistaken, is a federal official under the orders of the Federal
Government.
It is no doubt possible that the prisoner could, if he cared to undergo
the delay and expense of judicial proceedings, get some remedy against
the court which held him, apparently without legal right to do so, and
handed him over to the district attorney, but this would not serve his
immediate purpose, which I take to be release from jail, and it would
not meet the whole difficulty.
The principle that if any abuse of extradition process occurs the remedy
would appear to be a judicial and not an executive function is, I think,
open to argument. But in the absence of instructions from His Majesty’s
Government, I do not think I can serve any useful purpose by discussing
at length this aspect of the question.
I have, etc.,
[Inclosure.]
Mr. McIntire to
the British vice-consul.
Leavenworth, Kans.
,
May
9, 1906
.
Dear Sir: Replying to your esteemed inquiry
of the 7th instant.
On May 21, 1904, I was convicted in the United States district court
at St. Louis, Mo., of a violation of the law known as “devising a
scheme to defraud,” a high misdemeanor and nonextraditable, and was
sentenced to serve eighteen months in the penitentiary at Jefferson
City, Mo. Will pass over the merits of the case except to say that I
was not guilty.
I gave notice of appeal and was released on bond twenty-one days
after my conviction. Was given sixty days in which to perfect the
appeal. However, the first trial had exhausted my resources, and I
was not able to raise money with which to have necessary
transcripts, etc., prepared. I begged my bondsman to let me have the
paltry $300 which it required. The reason he should have given it to
me and seen me entirely out of my trouble was that he had made all
the money that was made (about $40,000) out of the alleged scheme.
He refused, however, and so I was unable to perfect the appeal in
the required sixty days. At the end of that time the Government did
not call on me for satisfaction of judgment, as I expected. The
matter dragged along for about six months and I was told that if I
would perfect the appeal even then it would be in time. The scheme
was suggested to me that if I should apparently jump my bond by
leaving the city for parts unknown that my bondsman, in order to
protect himself from the loss of a larger sum, would advance the
amount needed to perfect the appeal to my attorneys. This looked to
me like the straw to a drowning man and I grabbed it and went,
leaving a note to my bondsman that I had secured a permanent
employment in another city and would he be so kind as to advance the
amount as a loan to me and get the case into the appellate court,
and that he would hear from me shortly. Instead of having the
desired effect on him it worked contrariwise. He flew into a passion
and went to the home of my mother and told her that he would spend
$50,000 to get me back. This, of course, was communicated to me, my
fighting blood was aroused at the injustice of it, and I promised
myself to give him the chance, at least, to spend as much as I could
possibly make him. With this end in view I traveled the country for
about four months as musical director of a theatrical company, and
then sailed for London, as I knew the offense was a nonextraditable
one.
I arrived in London on February 14, 1905. In the meantime the
bondsman had offered a reward of $500 for my capture, sending
circulars broadcast and giving the Pinkertons carte blanche, of
which, by the way, they took full advantage. On April 8, 1905, I was
arrested, in London by Scotland Yard and Pinkerton men and brought
before the Bow Street police court to be remanded for extradition,
on information from St. Louis that I was wanted for the crime of
embezzlement. I explained to the court that this was a mystery to
me, as such a thing as embezzlement had never been thought of in
connection with me [Page 788] or my
affairs. Nevertheless, I was sent to Brixton Prison and kept there
for three weeks, until the papers arrived, together with the St.
Louis detective to take me back.
The papers showed that my bondsman, together with, two of his
friends, had deliberately and falsely alleged and sworn to the fact
that I had embezzled the sum of $90 from him. That this was an utter
impossibility was easily shown from the fact that I had never been
in a position to embezzle any of his funds, the opposite being the
case, as I never had any of his money, while he handled large sums
of mine, and on several occasions, to put it charitably, in a very
suspicious manner. I explained this to the court and said that this
charge was simply a subterfuge to get me back to the United States
so that I could be delivered up in satisfaction of judgment in
another matter that was nonextraditable. The judge, however, with
the greatest kindness and consideration possible, pointed out to me
the fact that he had the sworn testimony of three reputable citizens
of my community as against my unsupported word, offering to give me
all the time that I required to procure evidence in rebuttal. This,
of course, was impossible for several reasons, the first one being
sufficient—that I was barely making a living and had no money with
which to employ legal talent at both ends of the line. The judge
told me that he was sure that if I was innocent of the embezzlement
charge that I would not be prosecuted or punished on any other, as
it was an international matter and niceties of honor would be
observed. So there was nothing more to do, and after being kept in
Brixton Prison for fifteen days more, as required by their law, I
was brought back to St. Louis.
I arrived in St. Louis on May 27, 1905, Saturday afternoon, at about
2 p.m. Was kept in the hold over until Monday, the 29th, which, I
believe, was Labor Day and a holiday, and no one but friends came to
see me. On Tuesday, the 30th, the attorney for my bondsman called
and offered to dismiss the embezzlement case if I would allow myself
to be given up to the federal court for the other affair. By this
time I was penniless, sick, and altogether discouraged, swarming
with body lice from the jail, and knowing that if I attempted a
fight the matter could be dragged along indefinitely, with no relief
for me, so I agreed to his proposition. Court was not in session
that day, but the next, May 31, I was taken before Judge Moore and
pleaded not guilty to the indictment for embezzlement. I was then
taken into Mr. Sagar’s office, still in custody, and he, at the
suggestion of my bondsman’s attorney, entered a general continuance
in the case, and assured me that so far as he or his office was
concerned I would never again be troubled with it.
Although, as matters then stood, the charge for which I had been
extradited had been dismissed, I was taken, still then in custody of
the detective who brought me back, to the office of Colonel Dyer,
United States district attorney. He was very frank, told me that
under the circumstances he had no right to send me to the
penitentiary unless I was willing to go, and asked for an expression
from me. I told him that I was willing; that I was tired of fighting
against fate, and cared very little what became of me. Was next
taken to the office of the United States marshal. Was there
handcuffed, and took the 2 p.m. train for Jefferson City, where I
arrived at 5 p.m. Was transferred to this penitentiary on November
24, 1905, together with all the other federal prisoners at Jefferson
City.
I am, etc.,
