"Then," said Mr. McBride, "the agent signed the bills of lading for fraudulent purposes, and therefore his signature was unauthorized by the company who employed him, and under the Canadian law he is a forger, while the other conspirators would be guilty of uttering and publishing forged paper. The penalty would be just as severe for the latter offense, under the Canadian law, as it would be for forgery."
I neglected to state that after I had located No. 2, at London, Ontario, the railroad company's attorneys were informed by the judge who presided over the criminal court at Dallas, Texas, that in his opinion the fraudulent bills of lading heretofore described were not forgeries, as they had been signed by the company's agent, and for this reason, I presume, Gov. Brown instructed me as he did, he knowing that the fugitive, No. 2, could not be extradited from Canada unless we could substantiate a charge for forgery against him. No doubt, at the time, Gov. Brown believed the ruling of the Texas judge was correct. All of which I fully explained to Mr. McBride, to which he replied, "A Texas judge has no jurisdiction in Canada, and his opinion or construction of our law would amount to nothing here. And if you find any fugitive from the United States in Canada, who has been connected with the swindle, you will have to identify them as being the right parties, and then set forth the manner in which the swindle was enacted and the amount of money or property secured by the swindlers, and it does not make any difference what name the Texas statutes or the Texas judge gives the crime committed in the manner you have described to me, it would be forgery here. You must understand that you must comply with the requirements of the Canadian laws in order to extradite a fugitive from Canada. If you should find your fugitive here in London you can, if you desire, go to any other county or city in the province of Ontario and make your complaint, have a warrant issued for the arrest of the fugitive, bring an officer from that county or city to serve the warrant, arrest him here and take him immediately before the magistrate who issued the warrant, and have the prisoner committed to jail for two weeks without bail. At the expiration of the two weeks, should you desire an additional two weeks, you can secure same by convincing the magistrate that you were unable to secure the presence of the necessary witnesses to substantiate the identity of the prisoner, and his connection with the swindle; our law will allow you these continuances. After the prisoner had had his preliminary hearing, if the testimony offered should be sufficient to satisfy the magistrate, he would then fix the bond at the amount of four times the amount involved in the swindle, which would be in this case nearly one-half million dollars."
After McBride had finished the foregoing advice to me, I thanked him and paid him his fee, which was only $10.00, and went to Chatham, Ontario. Chatham is the county seat, about fifty miles west of London, and just half way between London and Detroit, Michigan.
I found the queen's counsel at Chatham, to whom I fully explained my case. Whereupon, he verified and approved the advice I had received from Mr. McBride of London. I at once filed the necessary complaint, and procured a warrant for the arrest of No. 2. The warrant was addressed and given to the chief of police of Chatham, who accompanied me back to London, where I pointed out the fugitive to him.
We arrested him immediately and took him to Chatham, where he was locked up as a fugitive, and his hearing set for two weeks later in accordance with the Canadian law.
The reader will remember that when I first located No. 2 in London he was surrounded by newly found friends there, a number of whom were fugitives like himself. For this reason I felt it prudent to begin legal proceedings against him in a country where both he and I were strangers and avoid the annoyance and trouble which his sympathizing fugitive friends were sure to cause.
As soon as No. 2 was safely lodged in jail I wired Gov. Brown at St. Louis, Missouri, stating that I had arrested and locked up No. 2 on the charge of being a fugitive from the state of Texas, United States of America, that the hearing was set for two weeks later and that while passing through St. Louis on my way to Texas, I would stop over long enough to report in person to him. In about two hours I received his reply, which was a severe reprimand, and read as follows: "Why did you disobey my instructions when you knew that I had instructed you as to what the Texas judge had decided, and therefore, the fugitive could not be extradited from Canada under the existing treaty, nor in accordance with the act of Congress, which provides for said treaty. Answer." (Signed) John C. Brown.
To which I answered as follows:
"Hon. John C. Brown, General Solicitor, Missouri Pacific Railroad Co., St. Louis, Missouri:—I disregarded your instructions, finding them erroneous, and that you did not understand the law pertaining to this case. Have also learned that a Texas Judge's ruling are not considered in Canada, as I find that I can legally extradite the fugitive from Canada under the present law." (Signed) Thomas Furlong.
After sending the above message, I borrowed a copy of the revised statutes of Canada from the Crown Counsel, who would be called prosecuting attorney in the United States. He marked each section of the statutes which pertained to our case. I at once put the law book in my grip, and started for St. Louis, arriving there the following morning.