Evening star., 1907-11-19
.EXTRADl1IoN OF PERSONS
RELATIONS LAID
DOWN BY JUSTICE HARLAN.
Rules Regarding the Surrender by
One State to Another Of Those
Charged With Crime.

; In the case of DR.. McNichols against the
state of Illinois, which has been decided
by the Supreme Court of the United
States adversely to McNichols, Justice
Harlan. who delivered the opinion of the
court, laid down a series Of regulations
established by long judicial precedence
governing the extradition Of persons from
one state to another, which will probably
be used as authority for the future in
such matters. They were as follows:
That a person charged with crime
against the laws OF the state and who
fees from justice and is found in an
other state may under the authority of
the Constitution and laws of the United
: States be brought back to the state in
which he stands charged with the crime
to be there dealt with according to law.
Duty Of State Executive.
That when the executive authority of
the state whose laws have been thus vio-
lated makes such a demand upon the ex-
ecutive Of the state in which the alleged
| fugitive Is found, as Is indicated by sec
| ton 527S of the Revised Statutes, produc-
! ing at the time of such demand a copy of
| the Indictment or an affidavit certified as
| authentic and made before a magistrate
charging the person demanded with the
| crime against the laws of the demanding
| state, ii is under the Constitution and
| Jaws Of the United States the duty of the
executive of the state where the fugitive
IS found to cause him to be arrested, sur
rendered and delivered to the appointed
agent of the demanding state, to be taken
TO that state. ...~-.
That nevertheless the executive upon
whom such demand is made, not being
authorized by the Constitution and laws
of the United States to cause the arrest
Of one charged with crime in another
state unless he is fugitive from justice,
may decline to issue an extrad ton war
rant. unless il is made to appear to him
by competent proof that the accused is
substantially charged with crime against
the laws of the demanding state. and is
n fact a fugitive from the justice of that
state.
That whether the alleged criminal Is
such fugitive from justice may. so far as
the Constitution and laws of the United
states are concerned. be determined by
the executive upOn whom the demand is
made. in such way he deems satisfac-
tory, and he is not obliged to demand
proof, apart from proper requisition pa
pers from the demanding state that the
accused is fugitive from justice
Rights of the Accused.
nat II II De determined that the al |
'eged criminal is a fugitive from Justice |
whether such determination be based upon
the reuuisition and the ACCOMPANYING pa |
pers IL proper form or after an original. |
independent inquiry into the facts, and IL |
a warrant OF arrest Is issued after such |
determination the warrant will be re- |
garded as making prima facie case in /
favor of the demanding state, and as re- |
quiring the removal Of the alleged crini- /
nal to the state in which he stands !
charged with crime, un.ess in some ap-
propriate proceeding it is made to appear
that he is not a fugitive from the justice |
Of the demanding state
THAT a proceeding by habeas corpus in
court of competent jurisdiction is ap-
propriate for determining whether the ac-
cused is subject in virtue of the warrant
Of arrest to be taken as fugitive from
justice from the state in which he Is
found to the state whose laws he is
charged with violating and
That one arrested and held as a fugi- !
tive from justice is entitled to the right !
upon habeas corpus, to question the law |
fulness of his arrest and imprisonment, |
showing by competent evidence as the |
ground for his release that he was not |
within the meaning of the Constitution |
and laws of the United States, a fugitive |
from the justice of the demanding state, |
and thereby overcoming the presumpt ons |
to the contrary arising from the face of |
an extradition warrant"