was a Canadian, who subsequently became naturalized in the United States; and hav ing gone to England, his surrender was de manded by the United States under the treaty of 1842, on the charge of forging and uttering a certain bond and affidavit. He was surrendered; and on his arrival at New York he was arrested on three warrants upon three separate indictments, none of them being founded on the charges for which he was extradited. While Laurence's case was pending, a demand was made on Great Britain for the extradition of Ezra D. Winslow on a charge of forgery in this country. Lord Derby, on behalf of the British government, absolutely refused to surrender him until the United States gave an assurance that he should not, until he had been restored or had been given oppor tunity of returning to British territory, be detained or tried in the United States for any offense committed prior to his sur render, other than the extradition crimes proved by the facts on which the surrender would be grounded. The case caused much discussion at the time; and as recently as 1886 — sixteen years ago — a convention was signed by the late Mr. Phelps and Lord Rosebery which in one of its articles provided that a fugitive criminal should not be detained or tried for any offense committed prior to his surrender, other than the extradition crime, without having an opportunity of returning to the country from which he was extradited. Turning to the strictly practical aspects of extradition, the following facts are of importance. The United States Constitution provides that a " person charged in any State with treason, felony, or other crime who shall flee from justice and be found in another State, shall, on the demand of the executive authority of the State from which he fled,
be delivered up to be removed to the State having jurisdiction of the crime." An act of Congress of Feb. 12, 1793, carries the constitutional provision into practical effect by declaring that the demand shall be ac companied by a copy of an indictment found against the alleged fugitive, or by an affidavit made before a magistrate of a State, etc., charging the fugitive with having com mitted a crime. These documents are to be certified as authentic by the Governor or chief magistrate of the State whence the demand comes. It is thereupon made the duty of the Governor on whom the demand is made to issue his warrant and to cause the fugitive to be arrested and delivered over to the agent of the demanding State. The essential factors of the case are that there must be a charge that an act has been committed which is a crime under the laws of the State in which it took place, and that the person so charged has fled from justice. The Governor of the State where the fugi tive is found is required to comply with the demand, if properly made and authentica ted. I cannot, however, discover the exist ence of any legal method of compelling him to do his duty, in the improbable event of his refusing to do it. If the fugitive is believed to have been arrested on insuffi cient papers, the regular course to test their validity upon his behalf is to apply for a writ of habeas corpus. If they turn out to be defective, he will be discharged. When the proceedings are sustained, their effect is, of course, to return the fugitive to the State whence he came, where he will be en titled to his trial under the ordinary course of judicial proceedings. Extradition as between separate nations is the limitation of the right of asylum. It was at one time believed that it was the duty of a State, under the law of nations, to surrender a fugitive from justice upon de
