Obrázky stránek
PDF
ePub

its criminal process to answer for his offense, he has left its jurisdiction and is found within the territory of another."

" 18

In Appleyard v. Massachusetts1 it was held that the belief of the accused, when leaving the demanding State, that he had not committed a crime against the State, did not prevent his being a fugitive from justice within the meaning of the Constitution and the acts of Congress relating to extradition. To be a fugitive from justice, it was declared, it is only necessary that the accused should have been within the demanding State at the time the crime was committed, and that thereafter he be found within the borders of another State. A fugitive from justice when apprehended in the State to which he has fled, and held for extradition, though restrained of his liberty, under color of authority derived from the Constitution and laws of the United States, is not in the custody of the United States, but of the States. When so apprehended, however, the fugitive has the right to test the lawfulness of his arrest by writ of habeas corpus issued either by a state or federal court.20

In Hyatt v. New York21 it was definitely held, without qualification, that in order to be a "fugitive from justice" within the meaning of the constitutional clause, and of the statutes relating thereto, the person sought to be extradited must have been actually, and not merely constructively, within the demanding State at the time the crime charged was committed. Furthermore, in this case it was held that one who came into the State on business for a single day eight days after the alleged commission of the crime, and months before indictment found, was not, by his departure therefrom, thereby brought within the terms of the statute providing for rendition.22

18 Roberts v. Reilly, 116 U. S. 80; 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 291; 29 L. ed. 544.
19 203 U. S. 272.

20 Roberts v.
Reilly, 116 U. S. 80; 6 Sup. Ct. Rep. 291; 29 L. ed. 544.
21 188 U. S. 691; 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 456; 47 L. ed. 657.

22"It is sufficient for the party charged to show that he was not in the State at the times named in the indictments; and when these facts are proved so that there is no dispute in regard to them, and there is no claim of any error in the dates named in the indictments, the facts so proved are sufficient to show that the person was not in the State when the crimes were, if ever, committed."

§ 111. Fugitive Slaves.

The same section of Article IV which provides for the extradition of fugitives from justice, provides that "no person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.". This clause is practically obsolete.23 An elaborate examination of the obligations imposed upon the States, and of the extent of concurrent legislative power in the premises is found in Prigg v. Pennsylvania.24

23 The question has been raised whether, since the adoption of the Thirteenth Amendment, the fugitive slave clause of the Constitution has become completely obsolete. It is generally so held, but possibly not correctly so. The clause in question, it will be observed, does not employ the word slaves. Its words are sufficiently broad to make the clause cover not only slaves but minor apprentices and possibly others owing services under contract. Indeed, Charles Sumner in a debate in the United States Senate in 1864 maintained that, properly interpreted, it applied only to such and not to slaves at all. (Congressional Globe, 1st Sess., 38th Cong., Pt. II, pp. 1711, 1750). The Thirteenth Amendment abolishes not only slavery but all " involuntary servitude," and it has been held that this renders illegal an attempt to compel, upon the part of adults, the performance of any personal services, whether provided for by contract and already compensated for, or not. Of course, however, damages for breach of contract to render personal services, may be awarded. But this does not render illegal state laws compelling the performance of personal services on the part of minor apprentices, and if this be so, it would seem that a minor apprentice escaping from a State where his services may be compelled, into another State, under a proper law for the purpose, be claimed and removed to the State from which he fled. The subject of peonage will be considered in a later chapter.

24 16 Pet. 539; 10 L. ed. 1060.

CHAPTER XV.

INTERSTATE RELATIONS: COMPACTS BETWEEN THE STATES, AND BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES AND THE STATES.

§ 112. Compacts between the States.

The control of international relations being exclusively vested in the Federal Government, it necessarily follows that the several States have no authority to enter into any diplomatic or political relations with foreign powers. Nevertheless, from an excess of caution, the federal Constitution declares that, "No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance or confederation," and that, "No State shall, without the consent of Congress, enter into.

any agreement or compact with another State, or with a foreign power."

It will be noticed that in the latter of these two constitutional clauses, the qualification "without the consent of Congress" is introduced. There has, therefore, never been any doubt but that, when this congressional consent is given, the several States of the American Union may enter into agreements and compacts with one another, so long as their effect is not to create what in political language is termed an "alliance" or "Confederation." 2 Not only this; it has been held that there are a variety of subjects concerning which the several States may enter into agreements with one another without the necessity of obtaining the consent of Congress. Upon this point, in Virginia v. Tennessee, the Supreme Court say: "There are many matters upon which different States may agree that can in no respect concern the United States. If, for instance, Virginia should come into possession and ownership of a small parcel of land in New York which the latter State might desire to acquire as a site for a public building,

1 See chapter XXXII.

2 Green v. Biddle, 8 Wh. 1; 5 L. ed. 547; Poole v. Fleeger, 11 Pet. 185; 9 L. ed. 680.

3148 U. S. 503; 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 728; 37 L. ed. 537.

it would hardly be deemed essential for the latter State to obtain the consent of Congress before it could make a valid agreement with Virginia for the purchase of the land. If Massachusetts, in forwarding its exhibits to the World's Fair at Chicago, should desire to transport them a part of the distance over the Erie Canal, it would hardly be deemed essential for that State to obtain the consent of Congress before it could contract with New York for the transportation of the exhibits through the State in that way. If the bordering line of the two States should cross some malarious and disease-producing district, there could be no possible reason, on any conceivable public grounds, to obtain the consent of Congress for the bordering States to agree to unite in removing the cause of the disease. So, in the case of threatened invasion of cholera, plague, or other causes of sickness and death, it would be the height of absurdity to hold that the threatened States could not unite in providing means to prevent and repel the invasion of the pestilence without obtaining the consent of Congress, which might not be at the time in session."

[ocr errors]

"If, then," the court asks, "the terms compact' or 'agreement' in the Constitution do not apply to every possible compact or agreement between one State and another, for the validity of which the consent of Congress must be obtained, to what compacts or agreements does the Constitution apply?" "Looking at the clause in which the terms compact agreement' appear," answers the court, "it is evident that the prohibition is directed to the formation of any combination tending to the increase of political power in the States, which may encroach upon or interfere with the just supremacy of the United States.”*

6

The court continue: "Compacts or agreements — and we do not perceive any difference in the meaning, except that the word 'compact' is generally used with reference to more formal and serious engagements than is usually implied in the term 'agreement' cover all stipulations affecting the conduct or claims of the parties. The mere selection of parties to run and designate

4 The court go on to quote with approval from Story's Commentaries upon the Constitution, Sec. 1403.

the boundary line between two States, or to designate what line should be run, of itself imports no agreement to accept the line run by them, and such action of itself does not come within the prohibition. Nor does legislative declaration, following such line, that it is correct, and shall thereafter be deemed the true and established line, import by itself a contract or agreement with the adjoining State. It is a legislative declaration which the State and individuals affected by the recognized boundary line may invoke against the State as an admission, but not as a compact or agreement. The legislative declaration will take the form of an agreement or compact when it recites some consideration for it from the other party affected by it, for example, as made upon a similar declaration of the border or contracting State. The mutual agreements may then be reasonably treated as made upon mutual considerations. The compact or agreement will then be within the prohibition of the Constitution or without it, according as the establishment of the boundary line may lead or not to the increase of the political power or influence of the States affected, and thus encroach or not upon the full and free exercise of federal authority. If the boundary established is so run as to cut off an important and valuable portion of a State, the political power of the State enlarged would be affected by the settlement of the boundary; and to an agreement for the running of such a boundary or rather for its adoption afterward, the consent of Congress may well be required. But the running of a boundary may have no effect upon the political influence of either State, it may simply serve to mark and define that which actually existed before, but was undefined and unmarked. In that case the agreement for the running of the line, or its actual survey, would in no respect displace the relation of either of the States to the General Government. There was, therefore, no compact or agreement between the States in this case which required, for its validity, the consent of Congress, within the meaning of the Constitution, until they had passed upon the report of the commissioners, ratified their action, and mutually declared the boundary established by them to be the

« PředchozíPokračovat »