every indictment is to be deemed and adjudged sufficient and good in law which charges the crime substantially in the language of the act of assembly prohibiting its commission and prescribing the punishment therefor, or, if at common law, so plainly that the nature of the offence charged may be easily understood by the jury; and that the indictment, which accompanied the requisition of the governor of Pennsylvania, does charge the crime substantially in the language of her statute. That Commonwealth has the right to establish the forms of pleadings and process to be observed in her own courts, in both civil and criminal cases, subject only to those provisions of the Constitution of the United States involving the protection of life, liberty, and property in all the States of the Union.

The only question remaining to be considered relates to the alleged want of competent evidence before the governor of Utah, at the time he issued the warrant of arrest, to prove that the appellant was a fugitive from the justice of Pennsylvania. Undoubtedly the act of Congress did not impose upon the executive authority of the Territory the duty of surrendering the appellant, unless it was made to appear, in some proper way, that he was a fugitive from justice. In other words, the appellant was entitled, under the act of Congress, to insist upon proof that he was within the demanding State at the time he is alleged to have committed the crime charged, and subsequently withdrew from her jurisdiction, so that he could not be reached by her criminal process. The statute, it is to be observed, does not prescribe the character of such proof; but that the execu tive authority of the Territory was not required, by the act of Congress, to cause the arrest of appellant, and his delivery to the agent appointed by the governor of Pennsylvania, without proof of the fact that he was a fugitive from justice, is, in our judgment, clear from the language of that act. Any other interpretation would lead to the conclusion that the mere requisition by the executive of the demanding State, accompanied by the copy of an indictment, or an affidavit before a magistrate, certified by him to be authentic, charging the accused with crime committed within her limits, imposes upon the executive of the State or Territory where the accused is found the duty of surrendering him, although he may be satisfied, from incontestable proof, that the accused had, in fact, never been in the demanding State, and, therefore, could not be said to have fled from its justice. Upon the executive of the State in which the accused is found rests the responsibility of determining, in some legal mode, whether he is a fugitive from the justice of the demanding State. He does not fail in duty if he makes it a condition precedent to the surrender of the accused that it be shown to him, by competent proof, that the accused is, in fact, a fugitive from the justice of the demanding State.

Did it sufficiently appear that the appellant was, as represented by

the executive authority of Pennsylvania, a fugitive from the justice of that Commonwealth? We are not justified by the record before us in saying that the governor of Utah should have held the evidence inadequate to establish that fact. The warrant of arrest refers to an affidavit taken before a notary public of Pennsylvania showing Reggel's flight from that Commonwealth. There was no such affidavit; but the reference, manifestly, was to the affidavit made by Frederick Gentner, which recited the finding by the grand jury of the city and county of Philadelphia, of a true bill of indictment charging Reggel with "the crime of false pretences," and stating that he "is a fugitive from justice," and was then in Salt Lake City, Utah Territory. This is sworn to, and is attested by the seal of the Court of Quarter Sessions, the court in which the prosecution is pending. It is not entirely clear from the record, as presented to us, what is the official character of the person before whom the affidavit was made. The reasonable inference is, that the affidavit was made in the court where the prosecution is pending, and that it is one of the papers accompanying the requisition of the governor of Pennsylvania, and which he certified to be authentic.

It is contended that Gentner's affidavit that Reggel is a fugitive. from justice is the statement of a legal conclusion, and is materially defective in not setting out the facts upon which that conclusion rested. Although that statement presents, in some aspects of it, a question of law, we cannot say that the governor of Utah erred in regarding it as the statement of a fact, and as sufficient evidence that appellant had fled from the State in which he stood charged with the commission of a particular crime, on a named day, at the city and county of Philadelphia, especially as no opposing evidence was brought to his attention. If the determination of that fact by the governor of Utah upon evidence introduced before him is subject to judicial review, upon habeas corpus, the accused, in custody, under his warrant, which recites the demand of the governor of Pennsylvania, accompanied by an authentic indictment charging him, substantially in the language of her statutes, with a specific crime, committed within her limits, should not be discharged merely' because, in the judgment of the court, the evidence as to his being a fugitive from justice was not as full as might properly have been required, or because it was so meagre as, perhaps, to admit of a conclusion different from that reached by him. In the present case, the proof before the governor of Utah may be deemed sufficient to make a prima facie case against the appellant as a fugitive from justice within the meaning of the act of Congress.

Judgment affirmed.

LASCELLES v. GEORGIA.

148 United States, 537. 1893.

THIS case was brought here by writ of error to the Supreme Court of the State of Georgia. The single Federal question presented by the record, and relied on to confer upon this court the jurisdiction to review the judgment of the Supreme Court of Georgia, complained of by the plaintiff in error, is whether a fugitive from justice who has been surrendered by one State of the Union to another State thereof upon requisition charging him with the commission of a specific crime, has, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, a right, privilege, or immunity to be exempt from indictment and trial in the State to which he is returned, for any other or different offence than that designated and described in the requisition proceedings under which he was demanded by and restored to such State, without first having an opportunity to return to the State from which he was extradited.

[Plaintiff in error, as appears from the opinion, was extradited from New York to Georgia under indictments charging him (under the name of Beresford) with cheating and larceny under trust. Before trial on these indictments he was indicted and put on trial for forgery, against his objection that he could not be tried for another offence than that for which he was extradited, without reasonable opportunity being first allowed him to return to New York. This objection, raised at various stages of the proceedings, was overruled, and he was convicted, and the conviction was affirmed in the Supreme Court of the State.]

MR. JUSTICE JACKSON, after stating the facts, delivered the opinion of the court.

The plaintiff in error prosecutes the present writ of error to review and reverse this decision of the Supreme Court of Georgia, claiming that in its rendition a right, privilege, or immunity secured to him under the Constitution and laws of the United States, specially set up and insisted on, was denied. The particular right claimed to. have been denied is the alleged exemption from indictment and trial except for the specific offences on which he had been surrendered.

The question presented for our consideration and determination is whether the Constitution and laws of the United States impose any such limitation or restriction upon the power and authority of a State to indict and try persons charged with offences against its laws, who are brought within its jurisdiction under interstate rendition proceedings. While cases involving questions of international extradition and interstate rendition of fugitives from justice have frequently been before this court for decision, this court has not passed upon the precise point here presented. The second clause

of section 2, article 4, of the Constitution of the United States declares 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 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." To carry this provision into effect Congress passed the act of February 12, 1793, 1 Stat. 302, c. 7, the first and second sections of which have been re-enacted and embodied in sections 5278 and 5279 of the Revised Statutes of the United States, prescribing the methods of procedure on the part of the State demanding the surrender of the fugitive, and providing that "it shall be the duty of the executive authority of the State or Territory to which such person has fled to cause him to be arrested and secured, and cause notice of the arrest to be given to the executive authority making such demand, or to the agent of such authority appointed to receive the fugitive, and to cause the fugitive to be delivered to such agent when he shall appear," and providing further that the agent "so appointed, who shall receive the fugitive into his custody, shall be empowered to transport him to the State or Territory from which he has fled."

Upon these provisions of the organic and statutory law of the United States rest exclusively the right of one State to demand, and the obligation of the other State upon which the demand is made to surrender, a fugitive from justice. Now, the proposition advanced. on behalf of the plaintiff in error in support of the Federal right claimed to have been denied him is, that, inasmuch as interstate rendition can only be effected when the person demanded as a fugitive from justice is duly charged with some particular offence or offences, his surrender upon such demand carries with it the implied condition that he is to be tried alone for the designated crime, and that in' respect to all offences other than those specified in the demand for his surrender, he has the same right of exemption as a fugitive from justice extradited from a foreign nation. This proposition assumes, as is broadly claimed, that the States of the Union are independent governments, having the full prerogatives and powers of nations,, except what have been conferred upon the general government, and not only have the right to grant, but do, in fact, afford to all persons within their boundaries an asylum as broad and secure as that which independent nations extend over their citizens and inhabitants. Having reached, upon this assumption or by this process. of reasoning, the conclusion that the same rule should be recognized and applied in interstate rendition as in foreign extradition of fugitives from justice, the decision of this court in United States v. Rauscher, 119 U. S. 407 et seq., is invoked as a controlling authority on the question under consideration. If the premises on which this argument is based were sound, the conclusion might be correct. But the fallacy of the argument lies in the assumption that the States

of the Union occupy towards each other, in respect to fugitives from justice, the relation of foreign nations, in the same sense in which the general government stands towards independent sovereignties on that subject; and in the further assumption that a fugitive from justice acquires in the State to which he may flee some State or personal right of protection, improperly called a right of asylum, which secures to him exemption from trial and punishment for a crime committed in another State, unless such crime is made the special object or ground of his rendition. This latter position is only a restatement, in another form, of the question presented for our determination. The sole object of the provision of the Constitution and the act of Congress to carry it into effect is to secure the surrender of persons accused of crime, who have fled from the justice of a State, whose laws they are charged with violating. Neither the Constitution, nor the act of Congress providing for the rendition of fugitives upon proper requisition being made, confers, either expressly or by implication, any right or privilege upon such fugitives under and by virtue of which they can assert, in the State to which they are returned, exemption from trial for any criminal act done therein. No purpose or intention is manifested to afford them any immunity or protection from trial and punishment for any offences committed in the State from which they flee. On the contrary, the provision of both the Constitution and the statutes extends to all crimes and offences punishable by the laws of the State where the act is done. Kentucky v. Dennison, 24 How. 66, 101, 102; Ex parte Reggel, 114 U. S. 642.

The case of United States v. Rauscher, 119 U. S. 407, has no application to the question under consideration, because it proceeded upon the ground of a right given impliedly by the terms of a treaty between the United States and Great Britain, as well as expressly by the acts of Congress in the case of a fugitive surrendered to the United States by a foreign nation. That treaty, which specified the offences that were extraditable, and the statutes of the United States passed to carry it and other like treaties into effect, constituted the supreme law of the land, and were construed to exempt the extradited fugitive from trial for any other offence than that mentioned in the demand for his surrender. There is nothing in the Constitution or statutes of the United States in reference to interstate rendition of fugitives from justice which can be regarded as establishing any compact between the States of the Union, such as the Ashburton treaty contains, limiting their operation to particular or designated offences. On the contrary, the provisions of the organic and statutory law embrace crimes and offences of every character and description punishable by the laws of the State where the forbidden acts are committed. It is questionable whether the States could constitutionally enter into any agreement or stipulation with each other for the purpose of defining or limiting the offences for which fugi