right be granted by the State to its own citizens exclusively. Waite, Ch. J., in answering the question in the affirmative, said: "The right thus granted is not a privilege or immunity of general, but of special citizenship. It does not belong of right to the citizens of all free governments, but only to the citizens of Virginia, on account of the peculiar circumstances in which they are placed; they, and they alone, owned the property to be sold or used; and they alone had the power to dispose of it as they saw fit. They owned it, not by virtue of citizenship merely, but of citizenship and domicile united; that is to say, by virtue of a citizenship confined to that particular locality." See also Paul v. Hazelton, 37 N. J. 106. For other discussions upon this subject, see Murray v. McCarty, 2 Munf. 393; Lemmon v. People, 26 Barb. 270, and 20 N. Y. 562; Campbell v. Morris, 3 Har. & M'H. 554; Amy v. Smith, 1 Lit. 326; Crandall v. State, 10 Conn. 340; Butler v. Farnsworth, 4 Wash. C. C. 101; Commonwealth v. Towles, 5 Leigh, 743; Haney ". Marshall, 9 Md. 194; Slaughter v. Commonwealth, 13 Gratt. 767; State v. Medbury, 3 R. I. 138; People v. Imlay, 20 Barb. 68; People ». Coleman, 4 Cal. 46; People v. Thurber, 13 Ill. 544; Phoenix Insurance Co. v. Commonwealth, 5 Bush, 68; Ducat v. Chicago, 48 Ill. 172; Fire Department v. Noble, 3 E. D. Smith, 441; Same v. Wright, 3 E. D. Smith, 453; Robinson v. Oceanic S. N. Co., 112 N. Y. 315; Bliss's Petition, 63 N. H. 135; State v. Lancaster, Id. 267; People v. Phippin, 37 N. W. Rep. 888 (Mich.); State v. Gilman, 10 S. E. Rep. 283 (W. Va.); Fire Dep't v. Helfenstein, 16 Wis. 136; Sears v. Commissioners of Warren Co., 36 Ind. 267; Jeffersonville, &c. R. R. Co. v. Hendricks, 41 Ind. 48; Cincinnati Health Association v. Rosenthal, 55 Ill. 85; State v. Fosdick, 21 La. Ann. 434; Slaughter House Cases, 16 Wall. 36; Bradwell v. State, 16 Wall. 130; Bartemeyer v. Iowa, 18 Wall. 129; United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542; Kimmish v. Ball, 129 U. S. 217. The constitutional provision does not apply to corporations. Warren Manuf. Co. v. Etna Ins. Co., 2 Paine, 501; Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall 168; Pembina Min. ing Co. v. Pennsylvania, 125 U. S. 181; Woodward v. Com., 7 S. W. Rep. 613

(Ky.); Phenix Ins. Co. v. Burdett, 112 Ind. 204. A discrimination between local freight on railroads and that which is extra-territorial is not personal, and therefore not forbidden by this clause of the Constitution. Shipper v. Pennsyl vania R. R. Co., 47 Penn. St. 338. This clause does not forbid requiring security for costs from non-resident plaintiffs. Cummings v. Wingo, 10 S. E. Rep. 107 (S. C.). See, for taxes which are forbidden by it, post, 595, note.

The

1 Extradition as between the States. return by one State of fugitives from justice which have fled to it from another State is only made a matter of rightful demand by the provisions of the federal Constitution. In the absence of such provisions, it might be provided for by State law; but the Constitution makes that obligatory which otherwise would rest in the imperfect and uncertain requirements of inter-state comity. The subject has received much attention from the courts when having occasion to consider the nature and extent of the constitutional obligation. It has also been the subject of many executive papers; and several controversies between the executives of New York and those of more southern States are referred to in the recent Life of William H. Seward, by his son. The following are among the judi cial decisions: The offence for which extradition may be ordered need not have been an offence either at the common law or at the time the Constitution was adopted; it is sufficient that it was so at the time the act was committed, and when demand is made. Matter of Clark, 9 Wend. 212; People v. Donohue, 84 N. Y. 438; Johnston v. Riley, 13 Ga. 97; Matter of Fetter, 23 N. J. 311; Matter of Voorhees, 32 N. J. 141; Morton v. Skinner, 48 Ind. 123; Matter of Hughes, Phill. (N. C.) 57; Kentucky v. Dennison, 24 How. 66; Ex parte Reggel, 114 U. S. 642; In re Hooper, 52 Wis. 699. The offence must have been actually committed within the State making the demand, and the accused must have fled therefrom. Ex parte Smith, 3 McLean, 121; Jones v. Leonard, 50 Iowa, 106; s. c. 32 Am. Rep. 116; Hartman v. Aveline, 63 Ind. 344; Wilcox v. Nolze, 34 Ohio St. 520. To be a fugitive it is not necessary

that one should have left the State after indictment found, or to avoid prosecution; but simply that, having committed a crime within it, he is when sought found in another State. Roberts v. Reilly, 116 U. S. 80; State v. Richter, 37 Minn. 436. The accused may be arrested to await demand. State v. Buzine, 4 Harr. 572; Ex parte Cubreth, 49 Cal. 436; Ex parte Rosenblat, 51 Cal. 285. See Tullis v. Fleming, 69 Ind. 15. But one cannot lawfully be arrested on a telegram from officers in another State and without warrant. Malcolmson v. Scott, 56 Mich. 459. But he cannot be surrendered before formal demand is made, and parties who seize and deliver him up without demand will be liable for doing so. Botts v. Williams, 17 B. Monr. 677. Still if he is returned without proper papers to the State from whence he fled, this will be no sufficient ground for his discharge from custody. Dow's Case, 18 Penn. St. 37. Even forcible and unlawful abduction of a citizen gives a State no right to demand his release. Mahon v. Justice, 127 U. S. 700. The question whether after such abduction in another country a State court will try a person, is not a Federal question. Ker v. Illinois, 119 U. S. 436. The charge must be made before a magistrate of the State where the offence was committed. Smith v. State, 21 Neb. 552. The demand is to be made by the executive of the State, by which is meant the governor: Commonwealth v. Hall, 9 Gray, 262; and it is the duty of the executive of the State to which the offender has fled to comply: Johnston v. Riley, 13 Ga. 97; Ex parte Swearingen, 13 S. C. 74; People v. Pinkerton, 77 N. Y. 245; Work v. Corrington, 34 Ohio St. 64; s. c. 32 Am. Rep. 345; but if he refuses to do so, the courts have no power to compel him: Kentucky v. Dennison, 24 How. 66; Matter of Manchester 5 Cal. 237. It is his duty to determine in some legal way whether the person is a fugitive from justice; the mere requisition is not enough; but his determination is prima facie sufficient. Ex parte Reggel, 114 U. S. 642; Roberts v. Reilly, 116 U. S. 80. See In re Jackson, 2 Flipp. 183. There must be a showing of sufficient cause for the arrest before the requisition can issue; but after it is issued and complied with,

it is competent for the courts of either State on habeas corpus to look into the papers, and if they show no sufficient legal cause, to order the prisoner's discharge. Ex parte Smith, 3 McLean, 121; Matter of Clark, 9 Wend. 212; Matter of Manchester, 5 Cal. 237; Matter of Heyward, 1 Sandf. 701; Ex parte White, 49 Cal. 434; State v. Hufford, 28 Iowa, 391; People v. Brady, 56 N. Y. 182; Kingsbury's Case, 106 Mass. 223; Ex parte McKean, 3 Hughes, 23; Jones v. Leonard, 50 Iowa, 106; s. c. 32 Am. Rep. 116; Ex parte Powell, 20 Fla. 806; State v. Richardson, 34 Minn. 115; In re Mohr, 73 Ala. 503. As to the showing required, see State v. Swope, 72 Mo. 399; Ex parte Sheldon, 34 Ohio St. 319; Ham v. State, 4 Tex. App. 645. If one is brought under extradition proceedings into the State where the crime was committed, he will not be discharged by it for defects in proceedings, except on application of officers of the State from which he has been taken. Ex parte Barker, 87 Ala. 4. The federal courts have no power to compel the State authorities to fulfil their duties under this clause of the Constitution. Kentucky v. Dennison, 24 How. 66. The executive may revoke his warrant, if satisfied it ought not to have issued. Work v. Corrington, 34 Ohio St. 64; s. c. 32 Am. Rep. 345.

Extradition to foreign countries is purely a national power, to be exercised under treaties. Holmes v. Jennison, 14 Pet. 540; Ex parte Holmes, 12 Vt. 631; People v. Curtis, 50 N. Y. 321. In the absence of a treaty there is no obligation to deliver a fugitive U. S. v. Rauscher, 119 U. S. 407; but by virtue of such a treaty an American criminal resident in a foreign country gets no right of asylum there so that he may not be removed therefrom by a State except under the provisions of the treaty. Ker v. Illinois, 119 U. S. 436. Foreign governments must make the ap plication, not individuals. In re Ferrelle, 28 Fed. Rep. 878. That where a person is extradited from another country or another State on one charge, he should be discharged if not held upon that, see Commonwealth v. Hawes, 13 Bush, 697; In re Cannon, 47 Mich. 481; State v. Vanderpool, 39 Ohio St. 272; Blandford ». State, 10 Tex. App. 627; State v. Ha!!,

Wagner, 42 N. W. Rep. 925 (Minn.). This clause of the Constitution has been the subject of a good deal of discussion in the courts. It is well settled that if the record of a judgment shows that it was rendered without service of process or appearance of the defendant, or if that fact can be shown without contradicting the recitals of the record, it will be treated as void in any other State, notwithstanding this constitutional provision. Kibbe v. Kibbe, Kirby, 119; Aldrich v. Kinney, 4 Conn. 380; Middlebrooks v. Ins. Co., 14 Conn. 301; Wood v. Watkinson, 17 Conn. 500; Bartlett v. Knight, 1 Mass. 401; Bissell v. Briggs, 9 Mass. 462; Hall v. Williams, 6 Pick. 232; Woodworth v. Tremere, 6 Pick. 354; Gleason v. Dodd, 4 Met. 333; Commonwealth v. Blood, 97 Mass. 538; Edson v. Edson, 108 Mass. 590; s. c. 11 Am. Rep. 393; Kilburn v. Woodworth, 5 Johns. 37; Robinson v. Ward's Executors, 8 Johns. 86; Fenton v. Garlick, 8 Johns. 194; Pawling v. Bird's Executors, 13 Johns. 192; Holbrook v. Murray, 5 Wend. 161; Bradshaw v. Heath, 13 Wend. 407; Noyes v. Butler, 6 Barb. 613; Hoffman v. Hoffman, 46 N. Y. 30; s. c. 7 Am. Rep. 299; Thurber v. Blackbourne, 1 N. H. 242; Whittier v. Wendell, 7 N. H. 257; Rangely v. Webster, 11 N. H. 299; Adams v. Adams, 51 N. H. 388; s. c. 12 Am. Rep. 134; Wilson v. Jackson, 10 Mo. 334. See McLaurine v. Monroe, 30 Mo. 462; Bimeler v. Dawson, 5 Ill. 536; Warren v. McCarthy, 25 Ill. 95; Curtiss v. Gibbs, 1 Pa. 406; Rogers v. Coleman, Hard. 416; Armstrong v. Harshaw, 1 Dev. 187; Norwood v. Cobb, 24 Texas, 551; Rape v. Heaton, 9 Wis. 328; McCauley v. Hargroves, 48 Ga. 50; s. c. 15 Am. Rep. 660; People v. Dawell, 25 Mich. 247; s. c. 12 Am. Rep. 260; Hood v. State, 56 Ind. 263; Lincoln v. Tower, 2 McLean, 473; Westervelt v. Lewis, 2 McLean, 511; Railroad Co. v. Trimble, 10 Wall. 367; Board of Public Works v. Columbia College, 17 Wall. 521; St. Clair v. Cox, 106 U. S. 350;

Van Fossen v. State, 37 Ohio St. 317; Cross v. Armstrong, 44 Ohio St. 613. See Drake v. Granger, 22 Fla. 348. But whether it would be competent to show, in opposition to the recitals of the record, that a judgment of another State was rendered without jurisdiction having been obtained of the person of the defendant, the authorities are not agreed. Many cases hold not. Field v. Gibbs, 1 Pet. C. C. 155; Green v. Sarmiento, 1 Pet. C. C. 74; Lincoln v. Tower, 2 McLean, 473; Westervelt v. Lewis, 2 McLean, 511; Roberts v. Caldwell, 5 Dana, 512; Hensley v. Force, 7 Eng. 756; Pearce v. Olney, 20 Conn. 544; Hoxie v. Wright, 2 Vt. 263; Newcomb v. Peck, 17 Vt. 302; Willcox v. Kassick, 2 Mich. 165; Bimeler v. Dawson, 5 Ill. 536; Welch v. Sykes, 8 Ill. 197; Wetherell v. Stillman, 65 Pa. St. 105; Lance v. Dugan, 13 Atl. Rep. 942 (Pa.); Lockhart v. Locke, 42 Ark. 17; Caughran v. Gilman, 72 Ia. 570. Other cases admit such evidence. Starbuck . Murray, 5 Wend. 148; s. c. 21 Am. Dec. 172; Holbrook v. Murray, 5 Wend. 161; Shumway v. Stillman, 6 Wend. 447; Borden v. Fitch, 15 Johns. 121; Bartlet v. Knight, 1 Mass. 401; s. c. 2 Am. Dec. 36; Hall v. Williams, 6 Pick. 232; Aldrich v. Kinney, 4 Conn. 380; Bradshaw v. Heath, 13 Wend. 407; Hoffman v. Hoffman, 46 N. Y. 30; Gleason v. Dodd, 4 Met. 333; Kane v. Cook, 8 Cal. 449; Norwood v. Cobb, 24 Texas, 551: Russell v. Perry, 14 N. H. 152; Rape v. Heaton, 9 Wis. 328; Carleton v. Bickford, 13 Gray, 591; McKay v. Gordon, 34 N. J. 286; Thompson v. Whitman, 18 Wall 457; Stewart v. Stewart, 27 W. Va. 167; Chunn v. Gray, 51 Texas, 112. In People v. Dawell, 25 Mich. 247, on an indictment for bigamy, in which the defendant relied on a foreign divorce from his first wife, it was held competent to show, in opposition to the recitals of the record, that the parties never resided in the foreign State, and that the proceedings were a fraud. To the same effect are Hood v. State, 56 Ind. 263; s. c. 26 Am. Rep. 23; Penny wit v. Foote, 27 Ohio St. 600; People v. Baker, 76 N. Y. 78; s c. 32 Am. Rep. 274; O'Dea v. O'Dea, 101 N. Y. 23; Reed v. Reed, 52 Mich. 117; Smith v. Smith, 19 Neb. 706. And see further, as to divorce cases, p. 494 et seq. infra. Mr.