Page:Harvard Law Review Volume 12.djvu/564

544 HARVARD LAW REVIEW. United States to review the determination of the Supreme Court of a State affirming his conviction.^ Any other general poHcy would be out of the question, because prosecutions in State courts would be constantly embarrassed and delayed by Federal inter- ference. At the same time the Federal courts have never re- nounced the right to issue writs of habeas corpus in exceptional cases, where immediate intervention may be essential for the up- holding of whatever rights a relator may have under the Federal Constitution and laws.^ It would therefore seem that there can be no question — even considering their general policy of non- interference — that Federal courts would be authorized to inter- pose and prevent the extradition of a person to a distant forum, if he has not been within the territorial jurisdiction of such forum. Furthermore, the ordinary rules regulating possible conflicts between Federal and State courts in criminal matters do not apply in the present connection, because interstate extradition is purely the creation of Federal law. There is not, therefore, a conflict between Federal and State law in the ordinary sense. In the question of extradition the only point involved is whether Federal law has been properly administered. Therefore a Federal court should have even less hesitation in nullifying the action of a State court upon a second writ in an extradition proceeding, than if the case were one where the criminal law of the State were expressly involved. Wilbur Larremore. 1 For two recent illustrations see Baker, Sheriff v. Grice, i8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 323; Tin- slay V. Anderson, Sheriff, 18 Sup. Ct. Rep. 805. 2 See authorities last cited.