◆ SpookStack

Prof. Moley, p&e 5. State, shall,c.. demand of the executive auvhority of the State from which he fled be delivered up te be removed to the State having jurisdiction of the ortine .* ee Obviousily,the foregoing provision applies to offenses against the laws of a State.It requires that the peraon to be extradited be .. “charged” with the commission of a crime,but the manner of presenting the charge,and what constitutes a charge are matters for congressional definition.You. will note that the foregoing provision namea"ths exec- utive authority of the State from which he fled“as the one to make the demand,but fails to designate the authorities who may apprehend ami deliver up the fugitive.This omission may be importent,for nicsa ro the power ef a State to errest and deliver up the fugitive is,by nee- ee essary implication,excinsive of Federal power, there wuld seem to be Nag oom far a separate or coordinate Federal agency to work in sooperae- tion with State authorities .The ceurts have construed the provision te be in the nature ef a treaty stipulation between the States, This, T assume,is beeause At tock the place of mtual arrangements between the States thet governed the surrender ef fugitives prior to the adoption ef the Constitution.(See Appleyard v Massachusetts,203 U.S, 222, 51 Loed.i61)}. From euch interpretation the pewer of a State te apprehend and deliver up a fugitive is clearly implied,tut it dees net follew that such power {s exsiInasive.The Supreme Court has held i that the provision of the Constitution is net self-executing, but that: the power te enforce it is vested in Congress.(See Roberta v Reilly, 562,it was held that congressional ection 4s exsinsive ef action by =< + the States upon all matters covered by the Act ef Congress, but to mo the extent that Congress may fail to exercise its full powers,such powers may be exercised by the States, EE BE cate terd) - -_ Up to the present time Congress has concerned itself only Poonam with the regulations under which extradition may be mde by the ; - States.It has prescribed the marmer in which the charge shall be pre- sented and has provided that the executive amthority of the State te ; which the fugitive has fled shall cause him to be arrested and de livered up to the agent ef the demanding State.In construing that sae Statute, the Supreme Court has held that the Governor,of whom the de~- .. .... mand 4a made,"ls not obliged te demand proof apart from the requisitior papers from the demanding State that the accused is a fugitive from re justice".(See Tllinois ex rel.McNichols w Pease,207 U.S.100,52 Leede 121).Now, it should be obvious that if a Governer,in his discretion, may ignore the issue of faet as te the commission ef a crime, insind= ing the issue of the fugitlvets presence in the State at the tine of its commission,Gongress would have unquestionable pewer te provide . that ali issues ef fact shall be eliminated from extradition preseed= =. ings,and limit the issue solely to the legal enfficiensy of the ine = ' dictment qx effidavit in charg a crime, whieh would be determinable by the laws ef the State whence the accused has fled, - There are cases which hold that "one arrested and held as a fugitive from Justice is entitled of = een habeas corpus,te ques- tion the lawfulness of his arrest an risonment, showing by compe-~ tent evidence,as a ground for his release,that he was not, within 3