◆ SpookStack

the meaning ef the Constitution and laws of the United States,a fugi-e tive from the justice ef the State". That Was used in Illinois ex rel. cHichols v Pease, supra, Put losses much force be~ camse, In that case, the Suprene sus & the right of ths Gov- ernexr to grant extradition upon the proof containsd in the extradition papers alone. Certainly, the discretionary powers of a Governor do not exceed the legislative powers of C as, and if the Covernor of a State mxy ignore the issues ef fect an extradition hearing,Congress would hayes the power te limit it te an inquiry inte the mfficiency of the crimine] charge er indictment. It will be odserved that the extradition clause of the Conatie tation makes no prowislon fer any hearing within the State where the fugitives is found,but pixwides only far his arrest md delivery te the agent of tho State where the orime was comutted; so, if the right to a hearing within the State of the fugitive's arvest muy be said te om ist as “tof t risnt it is cne ta the faliure of the Extradition Statute °o mie other provision. Following the . rule in Lima v Tobdin "the reasombis assumtion 4s that by the omission to extend fro eta tatate to the fall Limits of constitutional pover, 16 mat hive been intended to leave thse subjcets unprevided for not beyunc the pale of all law,tut subjeot to the power which tion contrelied thom— State anthority-= untad it was deemed essential by Murther legisistion to govern then Insively by national authority". That we vould give lecal courts che pover te herr and deternine compliuints in vogasd to ths walidity of the urrest mi isprisooment, but upon the onactzicat of nattonal logislation, the procedure prescribed oy Congress wouls be exclrsive. Therefore, $e Congress has picnary pover over the subjcct, it ha the powar to rix the veme of eny hearing +o which the alicged fugitive may be entitled.Of course the Governor of th: State whore the fugitive is found, in passing upom the dumand for oxzbradition, wuld necesss consider the sufficiency of the criminal clarge,wut that is a 1 question,and Congress would,in my opinion,have power to climinets all issauoa of fact fren such inquiry ak a place veuote from the scene ef the orimo, where the State is handicapped Ly inability te present comter evidence dase ef the great deterrents to the enforcamant ef cr Jaw has been the facility with which extradition has pobeivgtien avoided oa by raading ismesa of feat in such procendings Many scape prosecution because of the Inck of public fanis for the svtnnepertat of witnesses, and ége@ of this fact encourages crininals to seck shoiter or asyhra in fereign States, ‘The right ef extradition has been recegnized by the Supreme Cconrt as vitally important not ony to tls vigorous onforcement of the eriminal law, but alse to the harmony ond welfare of the States. In Appleyard v Waesachusetts, supra, the Court eafids * The judicial rurkordtios ef the Uniem should equally tale cure that the provisions £ the Constitution be not so nuavrowly int as to cnabd! - ee et _—— * Poncere Se Lie TES GO. & Ee as iW £2 4u A DUES Cerritaory o was not to prstest as “extend haandty t 10 those accused of c rine. “st vecognizes ne richt of the accused other than that to which he is entitled unmier the leawa of the Ctate undor which he 43 charged. Its s91e purpose is to enable cach State to mintain law enforcenent, and was not inteaded te set up or substitute any foreign proco in lien of its om tribunals. The purpose of this clase vas fore iy tated in Lasoelles vw Georgda,14S U,5-641,357 Leod.o49, In thich Se - ‘ae BS it