that it does not afford complete information upon many questions of essential importance in every-day practice. An examination of the extradition cases before the courts in the United States on habeas corpus will show that in almost every instance where the prisoner has been discharged, there has been a failure of justice because of a defect either in the complaint, in the warrant of arrest, or in the authentication of the documentary evidence. These subjects, therefore, are of the utmost practical importance; and yet, if accorded passing notice, they are usually dismissed with general statements which afford little guidance in the preparation and conduct of a case. It is one of the objects of the present work, by the presentation of judicially approved forms as well as by the exposition of what the courts have decided in respect to particular questions, to minimize the chances of error in technical matters. At the same time, it is believed that general principles of constitutional and of international law have not been neglected; and an effort has been made to trace their evolution and to illustrate their meaning and application by a laborious investigation of original records from the time of the Revolution. In this way much new historical matter has been obtained, which the author ventures to hope may prove both interesting and instructive. The law in foreign countries has been set forth with as great fulness as was thought desirable in a treatise. written with especial reference to the United States. In accordance, however, with the practical design of the work, a chapter of considerable length has been devoted to the law in Canada, in which country, as in the United States, the investigation of the question of criminality is committed to judicial magistrates. But, apart from the purely practical aspect of the matter, it is thought that the exposition of the law in foreign countries will, by disclosing the variant juridical notions there prevalent, possess considerable value for the student of comparative jurisprudence. No work relating to fugitives from justice would be entirely acceptable in the United States that failed. to include the rendition of such fugitives as between the States and Territories of the Union. But, in the judgment of the writer, such rendition is not properly described as extradition; for, as confirmed by the Constitution and regulated by the legislation of Congress, it proceeds upon a principle precisely antipodal to that from which are derived the leading doctrines of extradition, in its true and international sense. This is the necessary consequence not only of the form and character of the specific provision in the Constitution, but also of the mutual relations, duties, and limitations of sovereignty of the States under the Federal government. Whatever may be our theories as to the duties of nations, the leading rules on the subject of extradition presuppose and are deduced from the right, in strict law, of every sovereign power to grant asylum to fugitives from justice. Such a right has no place among states united under a common government, and as between the States of the United States it is excluded by the explicit requirements of the Constitution. Since the accurate employment of terms is of the utmost importance, and the use of the word "extradition" invites the application of the principles of international law to the interstate proceeding, the second part of the present work has been called Interstate Rendition. I desire to express my sense of the courteous promptitude with which the officials of the various States and Territories have responded to requests for information touching their statutes and practice. Nor can I deny myself the pleasure of making especial acknowledgment of my obligations to John D. Lindsay, Esquire, Assistant District Attorney of the city and county of New York, to whose kind and intelligent interest and unwearied diligence I am indebted for information in regard to various recent matters. WASHINGTON, October 23, 1890. JOHN BASSETT MOORE. |