determine whether the indictment charges any offense against the United States within the jurisdietion of the court where it is pending should be exercised liberally whenever the court hearing the habeas corpus proceeding is satisfied that were such indictment before him for trial and demurred to he would quash it.97 On this issue the accusatory averments of the indictment itself make out a prima facie case of an offense against the laws of the United States indictable in the federal district where it was returned.o One good count in the indictment under which trial may be had in the federal district to which removal is sought is enough to support the order of removal on habeas corpus.' The court may not presume that allegations in the indictment are false in the absence of conclusive evidence in conflict with them.1 98 99 [77] (3) Merits and Defenses.2 Neither the question of guilt or innocence3 nor any matter of defense can be inquired into. A constitutional ques the libel there, accused was properly discharged on habeas corpus from custody for removal to the District. In re Buell, 4 F. Cas. No. 2,102, 3 Dill. 116. 97. In re Terrell, 51 Fed. 213. [a] Reason for this view.-"This is a country of vast extent, and it would be a grave abuse of the rights of the citizen if, when charged with alleged offenses committed perhaps in some place he had never visited, he were removable to a district thousands of miles from his home, to answer to an indictment fatally defective, on any mere theory of a comity which would require the sufficiency of the indictment to be tested only in the particular court in which it is pending." In re Terrell, 51 Fed. 213, 214. 98. Rumely v. McCarthy, 250 U. S. 283, 39 SCt 483, 63 L. ed. 83 [aff 256 Fed. 565]; Haas v. Henkel, 216 U. S. 462, 30 SCt 249, 54 L. ed. 569, 17 AnnCas 1112; Hyde v. Shine, 199 U. S. 62, 25 SCt 760, 50 L. ed. 90; In re Wolf, 27 Fed. 606. 99. Price v. Henkel, 216 U. S. 488, 30 SCt 257, 54 L. ed. 581; Horner v. U. S., 143 U. S. 207, 12 SCt 407, 36 L. ed. 126; Lamar v. Splain, 42 App. (D. C.) 300. [a] This is true, even though accused may be held to bail in the district from which removal is sought of indictment some whose counts are similar. Price v. Henkel, 216 U. S. 488, 30 SCt 257, 54 L. ed. 581. on an 1. Witte v. Shelton, 240 Fed. 265, 153 CCA 191. 2. Defenses as ground for writ see supra § 36. 3. U. S. v. Fowkes, 53 Fed. 13, 3 CCA 394; Benson v. Palmer, 31 App. (D. C.) 561. 17 LRANS 1247. 4. Rumely v. McCarthy, 250 U. S. 283, 39 SCt 483, 63 L. ed. 83 [aff 256 Fed. 565]; Haas v. Henkel, 216 C. S. 462, 30 SCt 249, 54 L. ed. 569, 17 AnnCas 1112; U. S. v. Fowkes, 53 Fed. 13, 3 CCA 394 [aff 49 Fed. 501. And see supra § 36. [a] Defenses in abatement are not open under habeas corpus. Haas v. Henkel, 216 U. S. 462, 30 SCt 249, 54 L. ed. 569, 17 AnnCas 1112. 5. Rumely v. McCarthy, 250 U. S. 283, 39 SCt 483, 63 L. ed. 83 [aff 256 Fed. 565]; Henry v. Henkel, 235 U. S. 219. 35 SCt 54. 59 L. ed. 203. [a] Constitutional question.-Petitioner's contention that he could not be punished for failure to report to the Alien Property Custodian, as required by Trading with the Enemy Act (40 U. S. St. at L. 411 c 106) § 7. because such report would show that he had been trading with the enemy in violation of § 3, and compel him to bear witness against himself contrary to the Fifth Amendment, is unavailable on habeas corpus to obtain discharge from commitment into custody for removal | tion may be matter of defense within the rule." [78] (4) Identity. The question of the identity of accused will not be inquired into on habeas corpus to review federal removal proceedings. 8 [79] 3. Army and Navy-a. In General. Habeas corpus is a proper remedy to secure the release of one illegally in custody of the military or naval authorities, either as a member of the forces," or under a military arrest,10 but a strong case should be made out and all requisites of the law substantially complied with before the writ is awarded against a military or naval officer.11 As in other cases where the writ is resorted to,12 the only question open to inquiry and presented for determination is whether the person is illegally detained or held in custody,' and such inquiry, in accordance with the general rule,14 is limitto matters of jurisdiction,15 or power to ed to the District of Columbia, where the indictment was returned, the constitutional question being matter for defense. Rumely v. McCarthy, 250 U. S. 283, 39 SCt 483, 63 L. ed. 83. Constitutional questions as ground for writ see supra § 23. 6. Horner v. U. S., 143 U. S. 207, 12 SCt 407, 36 L. ed. 126. But see supra § 42. [a] Reason for rule.-"The question of the identity of Horner was a question of fact, which the United States commissioner had full jurisdiction to decide, for the purpose of removal; and his decision will not be reviewed on habeas corpus." Horner v. U. S., 143 U. S. 207, 215, 12 SCt 407, 36 L. ed. 126. 13 U. S. v. Wyngall, 5 Hill 16. 256. Pa.-Com. v. Fox. 7 Pa. 336; Com. v. Wright, 3 Grant 437; Com. v. Blake, 8 Phila. 523; Com. v. Selfridge, 7 Phila. 76; Com. v. Callan, 6 Binn. 255; Com. v. Murray, 4 Binn. 487, 5 AmD 412; Com. v. Gamble, 11 Serg. & R. 93; Com. v. Camac, 1 Serg. & R. 87. Philippine.--Matter of Carr, 1 Philippine 513. Wis.-In re Tarble, 25 Wis. 390, 3 AmR 85 [rev on other grounds 13 Wall. (U. S.) 397, 20 L. ed. 597]; In re Higgins, 16 Wis. 351; In re Gregg, 15 Wis. 479. "The only question for our consideration is the character of the detention. Is the party unlawfully_deprived of his liberty?" In re Disinger, 12 Oh. St. 256, 257. 14. See supra § 20. 15. U. S. Givens v. Zerbst, 255 9. Farley v. Ratliff, 267 Fed. 682. U. S. 11, 41 SCt 227; U. S. v. Grimley, See infra §§ 80, 81. 7. Army and navy see Army and Navy 5 C. J. p 289. Jurisdiction of state and federal courts see infra §§ 111-144. 8. See cases passim. 10. See infra § 82. 11. In re Keeler, 14 F. Cas. No. 7,637, Hempst. 306. [a] Reason for rule.-Interferences with the military authority are regarded with jealousy. In re Keeler, 14 F. Cas. No. 7.637, Hempst. 306. 12. See supra § 18. 13. U. S.-U. S. v. MacDonald, 265 2 Cas. No. 12.596, 3 Cliff. 439; Stingle's Case, 23 F. Cas. No. 13,458; U. S. V. Anderson, 24 F. Cas. No. 14.449, Brunn Coll. Cas, 202. Cooke (Tenn.) 143; U. S. v. Wright, 28 F. Cas. No. 16,778, 5 Phila. (Pa.) 296. Conn.-Lanahan v. Birge, 30 Conn. Mass.-McConologue's Case, 107 Mass. 154; Com. v. Downes. 24 Pick. 227; Com. v. Cushing, 11 Mass. 67. 6 AmD 156; Com. v. Harrison, 11 Mass. 63. N. H.-State v. Dimick, 12 N. H. 194. 37 AmD 197. N. J.-State v. Brearly, 5 N. J. L. 653. N. Y. In re Martin, 45 Barb. 142; Peo. v. Gaul, 44 Barb. 98; In re Barrett, 42 Barb. 479; In re Webb, 24 How Pr 247; In re Dobbs, 12 AbbPr 113, 21 HowPr 68; Phelan's Case, 9 AbbPr 286; In re Carlton, 7 Cow. 471; 137 U. S. 147, 11 SCt 54, 34 L. ed. 636; Ex p. Mason, 105 U. S. 696, 26 L. ed. 1213; U. S. v. MacDonald, 265 Fed. 695; Arbitman v. Woodside, 258 Fed. 441, 169 CCA 457; Ex p. Weitz, 256 Fed. 58; Ellen v. Johnson, 254 Fed. 909; De Genaro v. Johnson, 249 Fed. 504; U. S. v. Commanding Officer, 248 Fed. 1005; In re Traina, 248 Fed. 1004; U. S. v. Mitchell, 248 Fed. 997; U. S. v. Bell, 248 Fed. 992; Angelus v. Sullivan, 246 Fed. 54, 158 CCA 280; Ex p. Beck, 245 Fed. 967; U. S. v. Finley, 245 Fed. 871; Ex p. Hutflis, 245 Fed. 798; U. S. v. Heyburn, 245 Fed. 360; U. S. v. Brown, 242 Fed. 983; Hoskins v. Dickerson, 239 Fed. 275, 152 CCA 263, AnnCas 1917C 776, LRA1917D 1056; U. S. v. Williford, 220 Fed. 291, 136 CCA 273; Ex p. Dunakin, 202 Fed. 290; Ex p. Hubbard, 182 Fed. 76; Ex p. Rock, 171 Fed. 240; U. S. v. Pendleton, 167 Fed. 690; Dillingham v. Booker, 163 Fed. 696. 90 CCA 280, 18 LRANS 956, 16 AnnCas 127; Ex p. Lewkowitz, 163 Fed. 646; Moore v. U. S., 159 Fed. 701, 86 CCA 569; In re Scott, 144 Fed. 79, 75 CCA 237; In re Carver. 142 Fed. 623; In re Lessard, 134 Fed. 305; U. S. v. Reaves, 126 Fed. 127. 60 CCA 675 [rev 121 Fed. 848]; In re Miller, 114 Fed. 838, 52 CCA 472 [certiorari den 186 U. S. 486, 22 SCt 944, 46 L. ed. 1217]; In re Dowd, 90 Fed. 718; Solomon v. Davenport, 87 Fed. 318, 30 CCA 664; In re Kauffman, 41 Fed. 876; In re Cosenow, 37 Fed. 668; In re Davidson, 21 Fed. 618; U. S. v. Hanchett, 18 Fed. 26; In re Wall, 8 Fed. 85: In re Keeler, 14 F. Cas. No. 7,637, Hempst. 306. Ala.-Ex p. Hill, 38 Ala. 458. D. C.-Closson v. U. S., 7 App. 460. 595. N. Y. In re Martin, 45 Barb. 142: In re Beswick. 25 HowPr 149; Wilbur v. Grace, 12 Johns. 68. N. C.-Cox v. Gee, 60 N. C. 516; In re Graham, 53 N. C. 416. or evidence on which the governor acted; 27 and unless overcome by a counter showing,28 a writ of habeas corpus must be discharged and the prisoner remanded. 29 But a warrant which fails to show by its recitals the existence of all the prescribed conditions upon which the right of extradition rests 30 fails upon its face to show that it was authorized by law, and a prisoner held thereunder is entitled to be discharged,31 unless the requisition and the accompanying indictment or affidavit are made a part of the return, or otherwise brought before the court, in which case all must be considered, and defects in the warrant may be cured.32 Where the extradition warrant was not issued by the governor the facts on which it is founded. | 335. Kingsbury's Case, 106 Mass. 223. [b] Stipulations or admissions of counsel entered of record overcome every contrary presumption arising from the facts stated in the warrant. Peo. v. Hyatt, 172 N. Y. 176, 64 NE 825, 92 AmSR 706, 60 LRA 774 [aff 188 U. S. 691, 23 SCt 456, 47 L. ed. 657]. 27. Cal.-Ex p. Lewis, 79 Cal. 95, 21 P 553. N. Y.-Peo. v. Hyatt, 172 N. Y. 176, 64 NE 825, 92 AmSR 706, 60 LRA 774 [aff 188 U. S. 691, 23 SCt 456, 47 L. ed. 6571; Peo. v. Donohue, 84 N. Y. 438; Peo. v. Pinkerton, 77 N. Y. 245; Matter of Scrafford, 59 Hun 320. 12 NYS 943. Tex.-Ex p. Roselle, 87 Tex. Cr. 470, 222 SW 248; Ex p. Nix, 85 Tex. Cr. 307, 212 SW 507; Ex p. Cheatham, 50 Tex. Cr. 51, 95 SW 1077; Ex p. White, 39 Tex. Cr. 497, 46 SW 639. Wash.-Thorp V. Metzger, 77 Wash. 62, 137 P 330; In re Sylvester. 21 Wash 263, 57 P 829. [a] The state may introduce in evidence certified copies of the requisition and papers pertaining thereto which tend to show a strict compliance with the law. Ex p. White, 39 Tex. Cr. 497, 46 SW 639. Compelling production of papers before governor see supra § 61 text and note 68. 29. U. S.-Ex p. Dawson, 83 Fed. 306. 28 CCA 354. Ga--Blackwell V. Jennings, 128 Ga. 264, 57 SE 484. [b] It will be presumed that the arrest of petitioner and his delivery to the agent of the demanding state were by the officers authorized so to do by the warrant of the governor of the asylum state. Pixley v. State, (Ala. A.) 90 S 65. 30. Conditions of extradition see supra § 58. 31. U. S.-Ex p. Dawson, 83 Fed. 306, 28 CCA 354. Fla.-Ex p. Powell, 20 Fla. 806. Pa.- -Com. v. County Prison, 220 Pa. 401, 69 A 916, 21 LRANS 939; Com. v. Woolridge, 20 Pa. Dist. 417, 38 Pa. Co. 55. Tex.-Ex p. Thornton, 9 Tex. 635. Wash.-Thorp v. Metzger, 77 Wash. 62, 137 P 330 (warrant held sufficient). And cases infra this note. "Where the requisition, and the copy of the indictment accompanying it, are not made a part of the return, and the warrant alone, as in this case, is before the court. it must show (1) that a demand by requisition has been made for the party in custody, as a fugitive from justice; (2) that the requisition was accompanied by a copy of an indictment or affidavit charging the commission of an offense; (3) that the copy of such indictment or affidavit was certified by the governor of the state making the demand authentic." Ex p. Dawson, 83 Fed. 306, 307, 28 CCA 354. [a] This rule applies to a failure of the warrant sufficiently to recite: (1) A requisition or demand for surrender of alleged fugitive. Ex p. Dawson, 83 Fed. 303, 28 CCA 354. (2) Charge of crime. Ex p. Dawsupra. (3) Status as fugitive. 28. Chung Kin Tow v. Flynn, 218 Fed. 64, 133 CCA 666; Albright v. Clinger, (Mo.) 234 SW 57; Matter of Scrafford. 59 Hun 320, 12 NYS 943; Ex p. Gradington, 89 Tex. Cr. 432, 231 SW 781; Ex p. Nix, 85 Tex. Cr. 307, 212 SW 507; Ex p. McDaniel, 76 Tex. Cr. 184. 173 SW 1018, AnnCasson, 1917B 335; Ex p. Bergman, 60 Tex. Ex p. Dawson, supra; State v Justus, Cr. 8, 130 SW 174. See supra §§ 58, 84 Minn. 237, 87 NW 770, 55 LRA 61, 63. 325. (4) Indictment or affidavit. Ex p. Dawson, supra; In re Doo Woon, 18 Fed. 898, 9 Sawy. 417; State v. Richardson, 34 Minn. 115, 24 NW 354 (mere recital fugitive stood charged by "complaint" insufficient unless copy produced showing it had all essentials of affidavit); Ex p. McDaniel, 76 Tex. Cr. 184, 173 SW 1018, AnnCas1917B 335 (recital of "complaint" held sufficient); Ex p. White, 39 Tex. Cr. 497, 46 SW 639 (recital of "complaint" held sufficient). (5). Making of affidavit before a magistrate or judicial officer. Ex p. Powell, 20 Fla. 806; Ex p. McDaniel, supra. 32. 57. Mass.-Davis' Case. 122 Mass. 324. N. Y.-Peo. v. Pinkerton, 77 N. Y. 245; Matter of Scrafford, 59 Hun 320, 12 NYS 943. Tex. Ex p. Gradington, 89 Tex Cr. 432, 231 SW 781; Ex p. Roselle, 87 Tex. Cr. 470, 222 SW 248; Ex p. Nix, 85 Tex. Cr. 307, 212 SW 507; Ex p. McDaniel, 76 Tex. Cr. 184, 173 SW 1018, AnnCas1917B 335; Ex p. Bergman, 60 Tex. Cr. 8, 130 SW 174. See also cases supra notes 26-28. [a] Illustration.-An extradition warrant, which recites that accused stands charged by complaint before the proper authorities of the demanding state and that the demand is accompanied by a copy of a complaint sworn to before a justice of peace, duly certified as authentic by the governor of the demanding state, presents a prima facie case of the authority of a justice of the peace to act as magistrate, and accused has the burden of showing the contrary to obtain his discharge on habeas corpus. Ex p. McDaniel, 76 Tex. Cr. 184, 173 SW 1018, AnnCas1917B the U. S.-Ex p. Dawson, 83 Fed. 306, 28 CCA 354. Cal. In re Romaine, 23 Cal. 585. Ill.-Peo. v. Shea, 27 Chic. Leg. N. 214. Minn.-State v. Bates. 101 Minn. 303, 112 NW 260; State v. Richardson, 34 Minn. 115, 24 NW 354. N. H.-State v. Clough, 71 N. H. 594, 53 A 1086. 67 LRA 946 [aff 196 U. S. 364, 25 SCt 282, 49 L. ed. 515] (variance in description of offense cured by reference to indictment). Tex.-Coleman V. State, 53 Tex. Cr. 93, 113 SW 17. In rant may be cured by reference to accompanying papers. Coleman V. State, 53 Tex. Cr. 93, 113 SW 17 (recital of "indictment" instead of "affidavit”). 33. In re Tod, 12 S. D. 386, 81 NW 637, 76 AmSR 616, 47 LRA 566. And see cases Extradition § 34 notes 31-35. 34. State v. Toole, 69 Minn. 104, 72 NW 53, 65 AmSR 553, 38 LRA 224; Work v. Corrington, 34 Oh. St. 64, 32 AmR 345. And see cases Extradition § 41 notes 75-78. 35. State v. Toole. 69 Minn. 104, 72 NW 53, 65 AmSR 553, 38 LRA 224; Work v. Corrington, 34 Oh. St. 64, 32 AmR 345. 36. U. S.-Drew v. Thaw, 235 U. S. 432, 35 SCt 137, 50 L. ed. 302; Marbles v. Creecy, 215 U. S. 63, 30 SCt 32, 54 L. ed. 92; Pettibone V. Nichols, 203 U. S. 192. 27 SCt 111, 51 L. ed. 148, 7 AnnCas 1047; In re Bloch, 87 Fed. 981. D. C.-Goodale v. Splain, 42 App 235; Depoilly v. Palmer, 28 App. 324. Ida. In re Haywood, 12 Ida. 264, 85 P 902; In re Pettibone, 12 Ida. 264, 85 P 902; In re Moyer, 12 Ida. 250, 85 P 897, 118 AmSR 214, 12 LRANS 227 [aff 203 U. S. 221, 27 SCt 121, 51 L. ed. 160]. Ind. Worth v. Wheatley, 183 Ind. 598, 108 NË 958. Minn. State v. Langum, 126 Minn. 38, 147 NW 708. Mo.-Ople v. Weinbrenner, 285 Mo. 365, 226 SW 256. N. C. In re Sultan, 115 N. C. 57, 20 SE 375. 44 AmSR 433, 28 LRA 294. S. C.-Ex p. Massee, 95 S. C. 315, 79 SE 97, 46 LRANS 781. Tenn.-State v. Coleman, 3 Tenn. Civ. A. 316. [a] Thus the court will not consider or pass upon a charge that the proceedings were instigated by malice to annoy and harass accused. In re Bloch, 87 Fed. 981; Goodale v. Splain, 42 App. (D. C) 235; Depoilly v. Palmer, 28 App. 324. [b] The motives which prompt the demanding governor to issue his warrant are immaterial. In re Moyer, 12 Ida. 250, 85 P 897. 118 AmSR 214, 12 LRANS 227 [aff 203 U. S. 221, 27 SCt 121. 51 L. ed. 160]. 37. Ga.-Barranger v. Baum, 103 Ga. 465, 30 SE 524, 68 AmSR 113. Iowa.-Leonard V. Zweifel, 171 Iowa 522, 151 NW 1054. Minn.-State v. Hennepin County, 148 Minn. 484, 181 NW 640. Pa.-Com. v. County Prison, 220 Pa. 401, 69 A 916. 21 LRANS 939. S. C.-Ex p. Massee, 95 S. C. 315, 79 SE 97, 46 LRANS 781. Tex.-Ex p. Hatfield, (Cr.) 235 SW 591. Contra Ex p. Slauson, 73 Fed. 666. [a] Reason for rule.-"This evidence (that the prosecution was not in good faith, but to collect a debt) could only be insisted on as a circumstance throwing light on the guilt or innocence of the prisoner. We think, therefore, it was clearly inadmissible." Barranger v. Baum, 103 Ga. 465, 474, 30 SE 524, 68 AmSR 38. Pettibone v. Nichols, 203 U. S. war-192, 27 SCt 111, 51 L. ed. 148, 7 Ann And see cases Extradition § 38 113. note 57. [a] Clerical errors in the 91 Miss. 621, 44 S 827. 48. See supra § 63. 53 60 57 The court, therefore, can inquire whether there is a treaty in force authorizing the proceedings, whether the person is one who may be extradited under the treaty, 58 whether its conditions have been met,59 and whether the offense charged is within it, either as a particular criminal act,' as one of a class of criminal acts," 61 or as an offense committed within the jurisdiction of the demanding sovereignty.62 Extradition proceedings are begun by complaint before an extradition commissioner63 which is jurisdictional,64 and the court on habeas corpus may inquire whether such complaint substantially charges an offense within the treaty," and if it does so it is immaterial that it also charges one not within the treaty.67 Warrant issues on the complaint in order that accused may be brought before the commissioner for hearing of the evidence as to his criminality, and the sufficiency of such warrant generally, ,69 and as showing on its face that the commissioner issuing it is duly authorized,70 has been inquired into on habeas corpus even 68 66 (3) Whether there was an authen-1 15 Fed. 506; In re Farez, 8 F. Cas. ticated copy of a warrant of arrest, No. 4,644, 7 Blatchf. 48, 7 AbbPrNS 49. Marbles v. Creecy, 215 U. S. or of some other equivalent judicial 84; In re Henrich, 11 F. Cas. No. 6,369. 63, 30 SCt 32, 54 L. ed. 92; U. S. v. document, issued by a judge or mag- 5 Blatchf. 414; In re Macdonnell, 16 Cooke, 209 Fed. 607, 126 CCA 429;istrate of the demanding government, F. Cas. No. 8,771, 11 Blatchf. 79; Ex p. Ray, (Mich.) 183 NW 774; as required by treaty. Grin v. Shine, Ex p. Van Hoven, 28 F. Cas. No. 16,State v. Coleman, 3 Tenn. Civ. A. 187 U. S. 181, 23 SCt 98, 47 L. ed. 130. 859, 4 Dill. 415; Ex p. Alvarez, 14 316. (4) Whether requisition was made Porto Rico 628. And see In re Vereby the proper officer of the demand- maitre, 20 F. Cas. No. 16,915, 9 NY ing foreign government. Ex p. Al-LegObs 137 (holding sufficient a subvarez, 14 Porto Rico 628. stantial charge of a treaty crime in the commissioner's warrant and that of the secretary of state). [a] That defendant is a negro (1) and the subject of race prejudice is immaterial. Marbles v. Creecy, 215 U. S. 63, 30 SCt 32, 54 L. ed. 92. (2) The court cannot consider that accused, a negro, is not likely to have a fair trial, and probably will not have a trial at all, in the courts of the demanding state. U. S. v. Cooke, 209 Fed. 607, 126 CCA 429; Peo. v. Enright, 191 NYS 491. 50. Ex p. Ray, (Mich.) 183 NW 774; Ople v. Weinbrenner, 285 Mo. 365, 226 SW 256. 51. Marbles v. Creecy, 215 U. S. 63, 30 SCt 32, 54 L. ed. 92; Leonard v. Zweifel, 171 Iowa 522, 151 NW 1054; Ople v. Weinbrenner, 285 Mo. 365, 226 SW 256. 52. 60. Kelly v. Griffin, 241 U. S. 6, 36 SCt 487, 60 L. ed. 861; McNamara v. Henkel, 226 U. S. 520, 33 SCt 146, 57 L. ed. 330; Terlinden v. Ames, 184 U. S. 270, 22 SCt 484, 46 L. ed. 534; Oteiza v. Jacobus, 136 U. S. 330, 10 SCt 1031, 34 L. ed. 464; Benson v. McMahon, 127 U. S. 457, 8 SCt 1240, 32 L. ed. 344; Powell v. U. S., 206 Fed. 400, 124 CCA 282; Ex p. Zentner, 188 Fed. 344; U. S. v. Piaza, 133 Fed. 998; In re Reiner, 122 Fed. 109; In re Adutt, 55 Fed. 376; In re Roth, 15 Fed. 506; In re Macdonnell, 16 F. Cas. No. 8,771, 11 Blatchf. 79; Ex p. Van Aerman, 28 F. Cas. No. 16,824. International extradition gen-3 Blatchf. 160; In re Veremaitre, 28 erally see Extradition §§ 52-112. 53. See cases passim. 54. See cases passim. 55. See Extradition § 52. Federal statutes see Extradition § 56. F. Cas. No. 16,915, 9 NYLegObs 137; Treaties see Extradition §§ 53-55. 56. See Extradition §§ 53-103. 57. Terlinden v. Ames, 184 U. S. 270, 22 SCt 484, 46 L. ed. 534; Ex p. McCabe, 46 Fed. 363, 12 LRA 589; In re Vandervelpen, 28 F. Cas. No. 16,844, 14 Blatchf. 137; Ex p. varez, 14 Porto Rico 628. 58. Ex p. Charlton, 185 Fed. 880 [aff 229 U. S. 447, 33 SCt 945, 57 L. ed. 1274]; In re Neely, 103 Fed. 626 [aff 180 U. S. 126, 21 SCt 208, 45 L. ed. 457]; Ex p. McCabe, 46 Fed. 363, 12 LRA 589. Persons extraditable see Extradition § 62. 59. 66. Bingham v. Bradley, 241 U. S. 511, 36 SCt 634, 60 L. ed. 1136; Kelly v. Griffin, 241 U. S. 6, 36 SCt 487, 60 L. ed. 861; Powell v. U. S., 206 Fed. 400, 124 CCA 282;,, U. S. v. Piaza. 133 Fed. 998; In re Adutt, 55 Fed. 376; In re Charleston, 34 Fed. 531; In re Roth, 15 Fed. 506; In re Farez, 8 F. Cas. No. 4,644, 7 Blatchf. 48, '7 AbbPrNS 84; In re Henrich, 11 F. Cas. No. 6,369, 5 Blatchf. 414; In re Macdonnell, 16 F. Cas. No. 8,771, 11 Blatchf. 79; Ex p. Van Hoven, 28 F. Cas. No. 16,858, 4 Dill. 411; Ex p. Van Hoven, 28 F. Cas. No. 16,859, 4 Dill. 415; In re Heilbonn, 1 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 429; Ex p. Alvarez, 14 Porto Rico 628. [a] Where the charge is in general terms, and the complaint also contains all the facts on which it is made, and from such facts it clearly appears that no such crime, within the treaty, has been committed, but some other offense not provided for in the treaty, the complaint itself disproves the general charge, takes away the foundation for the commissioner's warrant, and is ground for discharge. Matter of Heilbonn, 1 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 429. 62. In re Taylor, 118 Fed. 196. [a] The statement of the complaint that the place where the alTeged offense was committed was at [b] More than one crime can be the time of its commission within the charged in the same complaint withterritorial jurisdiction of the demand-out rendering the proceedings vuling country need not be accepted, nerable to attack on habeas corpus. but the court should determine such In re Henrich, 11 F. Cas. No. 6,369, question for itself, being governed 5 Blatchf. 414. Grin v. Shine, 187 U. S. 181, by the action of the legislative or ex23 SCt 98. 47 L. ed. 130; Ex p. Charl-ecutive branches of the government ton, 185 Fed. 880 [aff 229 U. S. 447, with respect to the political status 33 SCt 945, 57 L. ed. 1274]; Ex p. of the place or country where the ofKaine, 14 F. Cas. No. 7,597, 3 Blatchf. fense is laid, if any such action has 1; Ex p. Van Hoven, 28 F. Cas. No. been taken, and, if not, acting upon 16,858, 4 Dill. 411; Ex p. Van Hoven, such information as it deems most 28 F. Cas. No. 16,859, 4 Dill. 415; Ex trustworthy, to obtain which it may p. Alvarez, 14 Porto Rico 628. consult the treaties, statutes, or decisions of foreign countries. In re Taylor, 118 Fed. 196. 63. See Extradition §§ 73-82. [a] Absence of a sufficient_com- [a] Inquiry may be made: (1) Whether requisition has been made by the foreign government, and whether the consent of the United States has been obtained, as required by treaty. Ex p. Kaine, 14 F. Cas. No. 7,597. 3 Blatchf. 1; Ex p. Van Hoven, 28 F. Cas. No. 16,858, 4 Dill. 411; Ex p. Van Hoven, 28 F. Cas. No. 16,859, 4 Dill. 415. (2) Whether the foreign government has formally demanded the fugitive's extradition. Ex p. Charlton, 185 Fed. 880 [aff 229 U. S. 447, 33 SCt 945, 57 L. ed. 1274]. Charleston, 34 Fed. 531; In re Roth, 65. Kelly v. Griffin, 241 U. S. 6, 36 SCt 487, 60 L. ed. 861; Grin v. Shine, 187 U. S. 181, 23 SCt 98. 47 L. ed. 130; Ex p. Zentner, 188 Fed. 344; In re Adutt, 55 Fed. 376; In re | [c] Complaint held sufficient in respect of allegations that offense was committed in demanding country. Bingham v. Bradley, 241 U. S. 511, 36 SCt 634, 60 L. ed. 1136. 67. Bingham v. Bradley, 241 U. S. 511, 36 SCt 634, 60 L. ed. 1136; Kelly v. Griffin, 241 U. S. 6, 36 SCt 487, 60 L. ed. 861. And see In re Roth, 15 Fed. 506 (holding that it is immaterial that the documentary proof in support of the complaint describes the proceedings in the foreign country as for an offense which may be embezzlement, within the treaty, or only abuse of trust, not a treaty offense, the presumption being that the requisition for accused is for trial on the treaty offense). 68. See Extradition §§ 84-89. 69. In re Macdonnell, 16 F. Cas. No. 8,771, 11 Blatchf. 79. 70. In re Farez, 8 F. Cas. No. 4, For later cases, developments and changes in the law see cumulative Annotations, same title, page and note number. 78 [29 C. J.] 83 the criminality of accused;" whether the legal evidence before the commissioner it cannot inquire was sufficient or insufficient to warrant his con 81 HABEAS CORPUS after eommitment of accused to the marshal pursuant to adjournment of hearing. ity of the arrest under the warrant may be deterLikewise, the legalmined.71 statute for a judicial hearing before the extradiSince provision is made by the federal tion commissioner,72 secure the release of one committed for extradition cases of habeas corpus to by such a commissioner fall within the general rules limiting the inquiry to the question of jurisdiction;" accordingly the court can determine only whether the commissioner acquired jurisdiction of the subject matters and the person of accused76 under the particular treaty and the statutory provisions, whether he exceeded his jurisdiction," and whether he had any legal or competent evidence before him on which to exercise a judgment as to 644, 7 Blatchf. 48, 7 AbbPrNS (N. Y.) | 84. [a] ceeding Reason for rule.-"The prois a and the fact that the Commisspecial proceeding sioner who issues a Commissioner authorized so to the warrant is do by a Court of the United States, is a jurisdictional fact, and should be set forth on the face of the warrant. In re Farez, 8 F. Cas. No. 4,644, 7 Blatchf. 34, 45, 7 AbbPrNS 84. 71. In re Farez. 8 F. Cas. 4,644. 7 Blatchf. 48,. 7 AbbPrNS (N. No. Y.) 84. [a] Illustration.-A United States marshal cannot lawfully arrest as a fugitive on an extradition commissioner's warrant one previously taken into his custody on a void warrant in whose behalf writ of habeas corpus has been served, such service placing the person in the custody of the court. No. 4,644, 7 Blatchf. 48, 7 AbbPrNS In re Farez, 8 F. Cas. (N. Y.) 84. 72. See Extradition §§ 90-93. 73. See supra §§ 19, 20. 74. See cases infra notes 75-83. 75. Bingham v. Bradley, 241 U. S. 511, 36 SCt 634. McNamara v. Henkel, 226 U. S. 520, 60 L. ed.. 1136; 33 SCt 146, 57 L. ed. 330; Terlinden V. Ames, 184 U. S. 270, 22 SCt 484. 46 L. ed. 534; Oteiza v. Jacobus, 136 U. S. 330, 10 SCt 1031, 34 L. ed. 464; In re Newman, 79 Fed. 622; In re Adutt, 55 Fed. 376; In re Stupp, 23 F. Cas. No. 13,563, 12 Blatchf. 501; Ex p. Van Aerman, 28 F. Cas. No. 16,824, 3 Blatchf. 160; Foster v. Goldsoll, 48 App. (D. C.) 505, 517; In re Heilbonn, 1 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 429. clusion.79 Mere errors in the proceedings before the commissioner afford no ground for the writ.80 In other words, in accordance rule, if the magistrate or officer had jurisdiction with the general of the subject matter and the person of accused, and there was competent legal evidence on which to exercise his judgment, his action is conclusive, and accused is not entitled to be discharged,82 since the merits of the decision made by the commissioner, either on the facts or the law, cannot be reviewed.88 There is, however, some authority that the court on habeas corpus may pass on the weight of the evidence on which the commissioner acted.84 Dis 77. In re Stupp, 23 F. Cas. No. "There are certain questions which may be determined upon habeas corpus. In short, they may be stated as follows: 1. Did the commissioner have jurisdiction of the subject-matter? 2. Did the commissioner have 9 NYLegObs 137; In re Wahl, 28 F. jurisdiction of the accused? No. 16,915, the facts before the commissioner re Wiegand, 29 F. Cas. No. 17,618, 3. Did Cas. No. 17,041, 15 Blatchf. 334; In constitute in law a crime covered by 14 Blatchf. 370; In re Ramirez, 11 the treaty? 4. Were proved before there facts Ariz. 256, 90 P 323; Foster v. Goldthe which were susceptible in any aspect commissioner soll. 48 App. (D. C.) 505. to a deduction of probable guilt?" Foster v. Goldsoll, supra. [a] The commissioner's in favor of his jurisdiction is not finding 'conclusive. In re Newman, 79 Fed. 622; In re Henrich, 11 F. Cas. No. 6,369. 5 Blatchf. 414. [b] The issuance of warrant by the commissioner for the apprehension of accused that he brought before the commissioner for may be hearing is not conclusive that the commissioner had jurisdiction, complaint being sufficient, on habeas the corpus to review the legality of the detention before hearing. bonn, 1 Park. Cr. (N. Y.) 429. In re Heil76. Bingham v. Bradley, 241 U. S. 511, 36 SCt 634, 60 L. ed. 1136; Terlinden v. Ames, 184 U. S. 270, 22 SCt 484. 46 L., ed. 534; Ex p. Bryant, 167 U. S. 104, 17 SCt 744, 42 L. ed. 94; Oteiza v. Jacobus, 136 U. S. 330, 10 SCt 1031, 34 L. ed. 464: In re Lautrec. 102 Fed. 878. 43 CCA 42; In re Newman, 79 Fed. 622; Foster v. Goldsoll, 48 App. (D. C.) 505. re upon the weight of proof would not Rev. Stat., § tions of the treaty. of the subject-matter and of the ac5270. Under this provision, the rule mitting magistrate has jurisdiction is well established that if the comwithin the treaty, and the magistrate cused, and the offense charged is has which to exercise his judgment as to before him legal evidence on the sufficiency of the facts to habeas corpus." McNamara v. Henkel, tablish the criminality of the accused for the purposes of extradition, ed. 330. his decision cannot be reviewed on 226 U. S. 520, 523, 33 CCt 146, 57 L. es before the commissioner to prove the 502, 35 SCt 649, 59 L. ed. 1071. [a] Reception of incompetent evi- sanity of accused held in interna- or fered defense, in extradition proceed[c] Refusal to consider a profings, even if erroneous, does not orcorpus. dinarily affect the jurisdiction, therefore, is not reviewable on habeas amount to more than error, S. 502, 35 SCt 649, 59 L. ed. 1071. and, Collins v. Johnston, 237 U. subject to review on habeas corpus. [d] That depositions properly certified was a mere error were not 33 SCt 146, 57 L. ed. 330. McNamara v. Henkel, 226 U. S. 520, in extradition proceedings, and not 81. See supra §§ 19, 46. 82. Bingham v. Bradley, 241 U. Charlton v. Kelly, 229 U. S. 447, 33 S. 511, 36 SCt 634. 60 L. ed. 1136; 397; McNamara v. Henkel, 226 U. S. SCt 945, 57 L. ed. 1274, 46 LRANS linden v. Ames. 184 U. S. 270, 22 SCt 520, 33 SCt 146, 57 L. ed. 330; Ter484, 46 L. ed. 534; Ex p. Bryant, 167 bus, 136 U. S. 330, 10 SCt 1031, 34 U. S. 104, 17 SCt 744, 42 L. ed. 94; SCt 689. 40 L. ed. 787; Oteiza v. JacoOrnelas v. Ruiz, 161 U. S. 502, 16 U. S. 457, 8 SCt 1240, 32 L. ed. 234; L. ed. 464; Benson v. McMahon, 127 Powell v. U. S., 206 Fed. 400, 124 CCA In re Reiner, 122 Fed. 109; In re 282; U. S. v. Piaza. 133 Fed. 998; CCA 42; Sternaman v. Peck, 80 Fed. Toulouse Lautrec, 102 Fed. 878. 43 883, 26 CCA 214 [aff 77 Fed. 595]; Blatchf. 501. In re Adutt. 55 Fed. 376; In re Wadge, Stupp. 16 Fed. 332, 21 Blatchf. 300; In re No 16,824, 3 Blatchf. 160. 23 F. Cas. No. 13,563, 12 6.369, 5 Blatchf. 414. 83. Ex p. Van Aerman, 28 F. Cas. Kelly, 26 Fed. 84. In re Henrich, 11 F. Cas. No. power to review the testimony on See also In re 852 (the court has nature, as whether power remains in a foreign state to carry out its treaty obligations." 94 95 Preliminary detention. It is ground for discharge that the time of preliminary detention in the United States stipulated for by the treaty with the other country on mere notification without production of the documents on which the claim for extradition is founded 96 has elapsed.97 Illegality in the mere preliminary arrest of accused without warrant is not ground for his discharge on habeas corpus after regular extradition proceedings have supervened.98 Detention in United States on other charge. It is ground for discharge that the detention in the United States complained of is in violation of the treaty right of the prisoner to have the offense for which he was extradited from a foreign country disposed of and then to depart unmolested, but not where the detention is for a crime committed in a state of this country after extradition.1 3 99 [70] (2) From British Empire2-(a) In General. Habeas corpus is a proper remedy to secure release of one illegally detained in England or a colony thereof for extradition to a foreign country. Since the legality of the detention depends upon the case falling within the various extradition acts and the treaties which they are designed to enforce, the court will inquire whether the pertinent extradition act and treaty are in force,5 whether accused is a person to whom the act and treaty apply, and whether the offense charged is an extradition crime, as one of the crimes enumerated in the extradition acts and also included in the Griffin, 241 U. S. 6, 36 SCt 487, 60 which accused is committed on sec- [a] Illustrations.—(1) A Canadian was extradited from Canada under a treaty between Great Britain and the United States, was charged with larceny here, gave bail for his appearance at trial, and returned to Canada. Returning therefrom to this country voluntarily before trial he was arrested on a capias issued Toulouse Lautrec, 102, from a federal court before his exFed. 878, 43 CCA 42. [a] Mere general conclusions on the part of the pleader as to the legal effect of the evidence are insufficient. In re Toulouse Lautrec, 102 Fed. 878, 43 CCA 42. 87. In re Herres, 33 Fed. 165. 88. Ex p. Zentner, 188 Fed. 344; In re Herskovitz, 136 Fed. 713. 89. Kelly v. Griffin, 241 U. S. 6, 36 SCt 487, 60 L. ed. 861. 90. In re Newman, 79 Fed. 622. 91. Ex p. Ker, 18 Fed. 167. 92. Ex p. Brown, 28 Fed. 653. And see supra § 29; and Extradition § 112. 93. Political questions generally see Constitutional Law §§ 381-385. 94. Terlinden v. Ames, 184 U. S. 270, 22 SCt 484, 46 L. ed. 534. 95. Terlinden v. Ames, 184 U. S. 270, 22 SCt 484, 46 L. ed. 534. 96. See Extradition § 83. 97. Ex p. Reed. 158 Fed. 891. 98. Kelly v. Griffin, 241 U. S. 6. 36 SCt 487. 60 L. ed. 861. See also infra § 70 text and note 19. And see supra § 18 text and note 95. 7 tion §§ 52, 56, 69, 95; and Halsbury Laws Eng. tit Extradition and Fugitive Offenders §§ 924-981. 3. See cases passim; and Halsbury Laws Eng. tit Extradition and Fugitive Offenders $8 961-966. 4. See Halsbury Laws Eng. tit Extradition and Fugitive Offenders §§ 925-933. 5. Ex p. Widemann, 12 Jur. N. S. 536; Reg. v. Ashforth, 8 T. L. R. 283. 6. Rex v. Brixton Prison. [1907] 2 K. B. 157; In re Galwey, [1896] i Q. B. 230; Matter of Counhaye, L. R. 8 Q. B. 410; Reg. v. Ganz, 9 tradition charging him with an of- [a] Arrest illegal. It is . not ground for discharge of one held under extradition warrant issued by a United States commissioner that his original arrest without warrant by the local police on a telegram from the authorities of the foreign government was illegal and there was no formal release and rearrest under the extradition warrant. Kelly V. and foreign countries see 1. Collins v. Johnston. 237 U. S. 502, 35 SCt 649, 59 L. ed. 1071. [a] Perjury on trial of the crime for which extradition was had is such a case. Collins V. Johnston, 237 U. S. 502, 35 SCt 649, 59 L. ed. 1071. 2. Extradition between Persons to whom acts and treaties apply see Halsbury Laws Eng. tit Extradition and Fugitive Offenders §§ 928-930. 7. Rex v. Brixton Prison, [1912] 3 K. B. 568; Rex v. Brixton Prison, [19121 3 K. E. 424: In re Arton, [18961 1 Q. B. 509; In re Arton, [1896] 1 Q. B. 108; In re Meunier, [1894] 2 Q. B. 415: In re Bellencontre. [1891] England 2 Q. B. 122, 12 ERC 77; In re Castioni, Extradi- [1891] 1 Q. B. 149; Reg. v. Portugal, For later cases, developments and changes in the law see cumulative Annotations, same title, page and note number. |