As is well known now, the operations of General Sheridan in the Shenandoah Valley and the region of Richmond called forth the plaudits of the Nation and the commendation of his superiors. His victories had much to do with bringing the Civil War to a close. He was conscious of the power and value of the cavalry arm of the army. In discussing his great achievements he made the remarkable statement that with a force of five or ten thousand cavalrymen, will organized, he could run over an army of almost any size. Whether this be true or not, it remains that General Grant had implicit confidence in Sheridan's ability to command the cavalry forces in a manner superior to any other officer in the Union Army.
It was on the suggestion of Grant that Sheridan was brought from the West to take command of the cavalry. After coming East, he was presented to President Lincoln. The President scrutinized him closely. He did not appear to be the officer recommended to him by Grant as the one man who could bring the cavalry forces to that standard which was so much desired.
The first time Lincoln met Grant after Sheridan called on him he expressed his doubt. "The officer you brought from the West seems rather a little fellow to handle your cavalry," said he.
Grant, however, unshaken in the belief that he at last had an officer under him whom he could trust in charge of all the armies of the Union if necessary, replied: "You will find him big enough for the purpose before we get through with him."
Sheridan was not only popular with his superior officers and men under him, but with the people generally. He was held in the highest esteem by the people of my State. After his promotion to the rank of Lieutenant-General, the citizens of Chicago presented him with a house in Washington, as a mark of their friendship and devotion.
While Governor I rendered a decision in an extradition case, which formed a precedent, and which is referred to by writers on extradition.
"In December, 1878, an interesting decision was made by Governor Cullom, of Illinois, in the case of two persons named Gaffigan and Merrick, whose surrender was demanded by the Governor of Pennsylvania on a charge of murder committed in that State in January, 1865. Accompanying the requisition was an indictment found against them in Pennsylvania in March, 1865, for the crime for which their rendition was demanded. It was alleged in their behalf that soon after the murder was committed, and before the indictment was found, they left their place of residence in Pennsylvania and went to Illinois, where they had resided continuously in an open manner, bearing their own names, transacting daily business, and holding responsible public positions. In 1870 or 1871 Gaffigan was joined by his father, who left their former place of residence in Pennsylvania with the avowed purpose of joining his son in Illinois. The residence of the latter in Illinois was also known to other persons in the particular locality in Pennsylvania, among whom were a constable and a witness whose name was endorsed on the indictment. On the other hand, the prosecuting attorney in Pennsylvania denied that there had been any laches in the matter, and declared that he had acted upon the first knowledge that he had acquired in respect to the whereabouts of the persons charged. Governor Cullom held that while it might be inferred from the fact that the accused left the State of Pennsylvania shortly after the date of the murder that they were fugitives from justice, yet this character did not always adhere to them; and that their long residence in Illinois, which was so entirely unconcealed and well known, that the officers of justice in Pennsylvania could have been ignorant of it only because they made no effort to find it out, had purged them of the character of fugitives from justice. It may be argued that this decision rests on moral rather than on strictly legal grounds. It is generally held that there is no limitation as to the time in recovery of fugitives from justice other than such as may be established by statutes of limitations of the Governments concerned, and it does not appear to have been suggested in the case under consideration that any such limitation had been established either by the laws of Pennsylvania or of Illinois. The decision of Governor Cullom may also be thought to involve the theory that the authorities of the demanding State may be called upon to show that they have used due diligence in pursuing the fugitives and in seeking their surrender."