(Ala. -__~. 1959) s.ct. .._.the Alabalna SupremeCourt held that the receivingstate could.not inquireinto the sendingstate'sreasonsfor revokingparole. In Woods v. State, 1956)the Alabama SupremeCourt upheld the constitution- 87 So.2d 633 (Ala.~S,C'f,* ality of the Compactagainst * claimthat l.tviolatedthe due processclause of the Constitution. In tirecase of Guiley, Sheriffv. Apple, 210 S.W.2d 514 (Ark. 1948)the ArkansasSupremeCourt h.eLdhat the InterstateParole Compactdid not violatethe right of habeas corpus,and also statedthat federalextradition procedurewas not intended. to prevent statesfrom making other arrangementsfor Mr. Jack Ross, Page 3 (w-989)
extradition.The leadingcase on the Compactis Ex perte Tenner, 128 P.2d 338 (Cal. S.Ct. 1942) cert. denied314 U.S. 585, 317 U.S. 597. This case covered almost all aspectsof the Compact'sconstitutionality.The United States SupremeCourt refusedto reviewthe favorabledecisionof the CaliforniaSupreme court. The only Texas case touchingon the UniformAct for Out of State Parolee Supervisionis Ex parte MargaretAnn Smith, 339 S.W.2d 671 (Tex.Crim.1960). In denyingan applicationfor habeas corpus,the Court statedin part:
"The Governorof Texas has executedthe compactas authorized and directedby the Legislature,and the State of Ohio is atparty to the compact.
"The Congressof the United Stateshas consentedto any two or more statesenteringinto such a compact.4 U. S. C. A., Sec. 111.
"The statuteauthorizingand directingthe Governorof Texas to executethe compacton behalf of this State isattacked as uncon- stitutional, the groundbeing that because of the use of the word 'substantially' the statuteis a delegationof legislativeauthority to the executivebranch of government.
"No authorityis cited in supportof such contentionand we know of none.
"'Substantially', as used in this statute,we understand means all that is necessaryor essential. The statutein effect requiresthat the compactto be executedby the Governorembody the substanceof the form set out therein,but does not require that it be in the exact words set out in the statute.
"There is no suggestionthat the compactexecutedvaries in any materielmanner from the languageof the statute."
Ex perte Tenner? supra,reeds in pert:
"The Compactrepresentsthe socialpolicy of both California and Washingtonin this regard, It is a uniformagreementfor coop- erativeeffortand mutual assistancein the preventionof crime and in the enforcementof the criminallaws of each statewithin the con- templationof the federallegislationand thereforedoes not violate the prohibitionof the Cotiitutionconcerningcompactsbetween states. . e 0 The existenceof an independentmethod of securingthe return of out-of-stateparoleesdoes not conflictwith nor render ineffectual the federallaws with relationto extradition.I 0 . And sincethe Mr. Jack Ross, Page 4 (w-989) statuteappliesuniformlyto all paroleesfrom statesparty to the compact,the petitionermay not complainthat the statutedepriveshim of the equal protectionof the laws."
In answer to the secondquestion,it is our opinionthat when a parolee or probationeris being supervisedin one state for another state,neither being the State of Texas and such person abscondsto the State of Texas and his parole or probationis revoked,the state of originaljurisdiction may take him into custodyin Texas and return him to its jurisdiction withoutextradition proceedingsunder Article781~, Code of CriminalProcedure. In a 1955 case before the New York SupremeCourt,People ex rel Marro Y. Ruthazer,140 N.Y.S.2d 571, the court when faced with such a problemdeclaredonly that all three stateswere membersof the Compactand the sendingstate could take him back. In re Severa,a 1953 North CarolinaSuperiorCourt case, the