◆ SpookStack

wLe tne proposition insists that tho atatte is not as broad as the Constitution, since it provides not for the surrender of tho fugi- tive by the State in which he is found, but only for his si'randsr by the Stats into which he has fled, thus leaving unp: ovided for the case of a fugitive who is found in a State, bub who has not fled into auch State, because braght into such State involuntarily by a requiai- tion fran anot»re And the argument is supported by the contention that, as the atatute exercises the power conferred by the Constitution and fe exclusive, it occuples the whole field and prohibita all S,ate ») aotion evo. upon a subject for «hich the Statute has not provided,and which therefore in no manner coma within ita express terms, But we are of the opinion that the contention rebts upon a mistaken premte and unwarranted ly oxtends the asope of ‘Gecided cases upon wich it reilense The first, because it errongoidiy assumes that ale though the statute loaves a subject with which tere wae power to doal unprovided for, 1t therefore took all an n such unprovided area out of any possible State actions - a becruac, while oo it is undabtedly true that in the ca ne liod up Kentucky v ——e Dennison,supra ,Roberts wv Reilly, 11 Q> 29 Leads 6 Sup.Ct.Repe ane Am.Crim.RepedSil) the exclusive ché in the statute was recognized, eno further t 12 ‘ithe legislation embodled when rightly construed, try _ tho statute of all 3 ip has necessa mpdication pro zs = a _ Pg0566! (Contiming) "No reason is\duge hed » nor have we bean eble te - discover any, to euste iy the assump , in not maxing its prov Constitution, did se ¢ unprovided for, ond the operatti State or Nationale th tr Statuéa Aaalt 44 7 Pear leas ous with the power granted by the of leaving the subject, 30 far es of any legal authority whatever, hen the situation vith which the a - he Statute dealt etemp lits fud reasonatle assumption is that bP ion that the framers of the statute the omission/to extend the atatute to the B of cons onal - power. At mist have bees intended tw Leave the subjects unprovid Pt si sp iD a aw, but suo.eot to the pover whieh then é . controlled thom =~ State hpthority < unt was deemed essential by Bs rurther lepialation to govern them exciusivety by nationsl cuthor . x Roberts v, Reilly; 116 U.8.94, 29 Led.544, leceS48s » . Pl Pg.5464 "That constitutional provision deolares that Ya person cha gon in any State with treason,felony or other crime, who shall flee Tee fron justice and be found in another State ,shall, on demani of —-—_- the exesutive authority of the State fro -hich hs fled, be de- livered up to the State having jurisdiction of the crime” .Art. IV.,800,2,¢lause 2.there ia no oxprcoss prant to Con-renss of epislautive pover to execute this :