Opinion of the Court. Kentucky statute prescribed no test of inspection which, in view of the nature of the property, was either unusual or unreasonable, or which by its necessary operation discriminated against any particular oil because of the locality of its production. If it had prescribed a mode of inspection to which citizens of other States, having oils designed for illuminating purposes, and which they desired to sell in the Kentucky market, could not have reasonably conformed, it would undoubtedly have been held to be an unauthorized burden upon interstate commerce. Looking at the nature of the property to which the Kentucky statute had reference, there was no difficulty in the way of the patentee of the particular oil there in question submitting to the required local inspection. But a law providing for the inspection of animals whose meats are designed for human food cannot be regarded as a rightful exertion of the police powers of the State, if the inspection prescribed is of such a character, or is burdened with such conditions, as will prevent altogether the introduction into the State of sound meats, the product of animals slaughtered in other States. It is one thing for a State to exclude from its limits cattle, sheep or swine, actually diseased, or meats that, by reason of their condition, or the condition of the animals from which they are taken, are unfit for human food, and punish all sales of such animals or of such meats within its limits. It is quite a different thing for a State to declare, as does Minnesota by the necessary operation of its statute, that fresh beef, veal, mutton, lamb or pork — articles that are used in every part of this country to support human life-shall not be sold at all for human food within its limits, unless the animal from which such meats are taken is inspected in that State, or, as is practically said, unless the animal is slaughtered in that State. One other suggestion by the counsel for the State deserves to be examined. It is, that so far as this statute is concerned, the people of Minnesota can purchase in other States fresh beef, veal, mutton, lamb and pork, and bring such meats into Minnesota for their own personal use. We do not perceive Opinion of the Court. that this view strengthens the case for the State, for it ignores the right which the people of other States have in commerce between those States and the State of Minnesota. And it ignores the right of the people of Minnesota to bring into that State, for purposes of sale, sound and healthy meat, wherever such meat may have come into existence. But there is a consideration arising out of the suggestion just alluded to which militates somewhat against the theory that the statute in question is a legitimate exertion of the police powers of the State for the protection of the public health. If every hotelkeeper, railroad or mining corporation, or contractor, in Minnesota, furnishing subsistence to large numbers of persons, and every private family in that State, that is so disposed, can, without violating this statute, bring into the State from other States and use for their own purposes, fresh beef, veal, mutton, lamb and pork, taken from animals slaughtered outside of Minnesota which may not have been inspected at all, or not within twenty-four hours before being slaughtered, what becomes of the argument, pressed with so much earnestness, that the health of the people of that State requires that they be protected against the use of meats from animals not inspected in Minnesota within the twenty-four hours before being slaughtered? If the statute, while permitting the sale of meats from animals slaughtered, inspected and "certified" in that State, had expressly forbidden the introduction from other States, and their sale in Minnesota, of all fresh meats, of every kind, without making any distinction between those that were from animals inspected on the hoof and those that were not so inspected, its unconstitutionality could not have been doubted. And yet it is so framed that this precise result is attained as to all sales in Minnesota, for human food, of meats from animals slaughtered in other States. In the opinion of this court the statute in question, so far as its provisions require, as a condition of sales in Minnesota of fresh beef, veal, mutton, lamb or pork for human food, that the animals from which such meats are taken shall have been Counsel for Parties. inspected in Minnesota before being slaughtered, is in violation of the Constitution of the United States and void. The judgment discharging the appellee from custody is affirmed. IN RE LUIS OTEIZA y CORTES, Petitioner.1 APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. No. 1631. Argued May 20, 1890.- Decided May 23, 1890. A writ of habeas corpus in a case of extradition cannot perform the office of a writ of error. If the commissioner has jurisdiction of the subject matter and of the person of the accused, and the offence charged is within the terms of a treaty of extradition, and the commissioner, in arriving at a decision to hold the accused, has before him competent legal evidence on which to exercise his judgment as to whether the facts are sufficient to establish the criminality of the accused for the purposes of extradition, such decision of the commissioner cannot be reviewed by a Circuit Court or by this court, on habeas corpus, either originally or by appeal. In § 5 of the act of August 3, 1882, c. 378, (22 Stat. 216,) the words "for similar purposes 66 mean as evidence of criminality," and depositions, or other papers, or copies thereof, authenticated and certified in the manner prescribed in § 5, are not admissible in evidence, on the hearing before the commissioner, on the part of the accused. PETITION for a writ of habeas corpus. The writ was denied, from which judgment the petitioner took this appeal. The case is stated in the opinion. Mr. Louis S. Phillips for the petitioner. Mr. Emmet R. Olcott, on behalf of the Spanish government, opposing. 1 The docket title of this case was: Luis de Oteiza y Cortez, Appellant, v. John W. Jacobus, Marshal, etc., et al. Opinion of the Court. MR. JUSTICE BLATCHFORD delivered the opinion of the court. By section 12, of Article II, of the convention between the United States and the kingdom of Spain, for the extradition of criminals, concluded January 5, 1877, and proclaimed February 21, 1877, (19 Stat. 650,) it was provided, that persons should be delivered up according to the provisions of the convention, who should have been charged with, or convicted of, any of the following crimes: "12. The embezzlement of public funds, committed within the jurisdiction of one or the other party, by public officers or depositaries.” By a supplemental convention between the United States and the kingdom of Spain, concerning extradition, concluded August 7, 1882, and proclaimed April 19, 1883, (22 Stat. 991,) section 12, of Article II, of the convention of January 5, 1877, was amended to read as follows: "12. The embezzlement or criminal malversation of public funds, committed within the jurisdiction of one or the other party, by public officers or depositaries." On the 2d of January, 1890, Miguel Suarez Guanes, the Consul General of Spain at the city of New York, duly recognized as such by the President of the United States, filed a complaint, on his own oath, before Samuel H. Lyman, a duly authorized United States commissioner for the Southern District of New York, charging that one Luis Oteiza y Cortes, the secretary or clerk of the Bureau of Public Debt of the island of Cuba, at Havana, and an officer in the employment of the kingdom of Spain, at Havana, had charge of the public funds and moneys belonging to the kingdom of Spain, namely, the Bureau of Public Debt of the island of Cuba, at Havana ; that in December, 1889, the said Luis Oteiza y Cortes (who will hereinafter be called Oteiza) at Havana, and within the jurisdiction of the kingdom of Spain, in the course of his said employment, had in his possession, as such clerk or secretary, a large amount of public bonds or certificates of indebtedness of the kingdom of Spain, belonging to the public debt of the island of Cuba, and being a part of the public funds of the kingdom of Spain; and that Oteiza, at that time, at Havana, Opinion of the Court. wrongfully and feloniously embezzled bonds or certificates of indebtedness belonging to the said public debt of the island of Cuba, of the value of $190,000, and converted the same to his own use, and also the coupons of other government bonds, of the value of $500,000, and the stub-books thereof. The complainant, therefore, charged Oteiza with the crime of embezzlement of bonds or certificates of indebtedness of the said public debt of the island of Cuba, committed at Havana, and further stated that Oteiza had fled to the United States, and that criminal proceedings had been begun in Havana against him for such embezzlement, and asked for a warrant for his apprehension under the above-named two conventions, that evidence of his criminality might be heard by the commissioner, and that if, on the hearing, the evidence should be deemed sufficient to sustain the charge, a warrant might issue for his surrender. In the course of the proceedings before the commissioner, this complaint was amended by adding the words "or criminal malversation" after the word "embezzlement," wherever it appeared in the complaint. On the 2d of January, 1890, a warrant was issued by the commissioner, reciting the complaint and stating that Oteiza was charged by it "with having committed the crime of embezzlement or criminal malversation of public funds within the jurisdiction of the kingdom of Spain," and that such crime was enumerated and provided for by the two conventions before mentioned. The warrant was directed to the marshal or any deputy, and commanded that Oteiza be apprehended and brought before the commissioner, in order that the evidence of his criminality might be heard. Oteiza was arrested, and evidence in the matter on both sides was heard by the commissioner. On the 13th of March, 1890, the commissioner certified that, on the examination and the hearings which had been had, he deemed the evidence sufficient to sustain the charge, and that he committed the accused to the custody of the marshal, to be held until a warrant for his surrender should issue according to the stipulations of the treaty, or he should be otherwise dealt with according to law. On the 14th of March, 1890, a writ of habeas corpus, to |