Treaties have been made between the Unit ed States and Many foreign powers for the mutual surrender of persons charged with certain crimes. These treaties may be found in full in the United States Statutes at Large, in 2 Moore on Extradition 1072; Has well, Treaties, etc., U. S. ; see 4 Moore, Int. L. Dig.
The United States interstate extradition laws extend to Porto Rico ; People v. Bing ham, 211 U. S. 468, 29 Sup. Ct. 190, 53 L. Ed. 286; and to any portion of the country not within the limits of a state, but organized under the laws of congress, with an execu tive, legislative and judicial system of its own ; In re Lane, 135 U. S. 443, 10 Sup. \Ct. 760, 34 L. Ed. 219 ; this does not include the Cherokee Nation ; Ex parte Morgan, 20 Fed. 298, approved in People v. Bingham, 211 U. S. 468, 29 Sup. Ct. 190, 53 L. Ed. 286 ; nor (at that time) Oklahoma ; In re Lane, 135 U. S. 443, 10 Sup. Ct. 760, 34 L. Ed. 219.
The general principle of international law is that in all cases of extradition the act done on account of which extradition is de manded must be considered a crime by both countries. For nearly all crimes, the laws of the states, and not the enactments of con gress, must be looked to for the definition of the offence ; Wright v. Henkel, 190 U. S. 40, 23 Sup. Ct. 781, 47 L. Ed. 948 ; Pettit v. Walshe, 1,94 U. S. 210, 24 Sup. Ct. 657, 48 L. Ed. 938. Where a British fugitive was demanded in New •York, and the British and New York statutes both covered the publica tion of fraudulent statements by corporate officers, it was held that the two statutes were substantially analogous under an ex tradition treaty relating to fraud by corpo rate officers ; Wright v. Henkel, 190 U. S. 40, 23 Sup. Ct. 781, 47 L. Ed. 948.
In the construction and carrying out of such treaties, the ordinary technicalities of criminal proceedings are applicable only to a limited extent. Proceedings for surrender simply demand of the accused that he shall do what all good citizens are required and ought to be willing to do, viz. submit them selves to the law of their country. Care should be taken that the treaty be not made a pretext for collecting private debts, wreak ing individual malice, or forcing the surren der of political offenders ; but where the pro ceeding is manifestly taken in good faith, a technical non-compliance with some •ormali ty should not be allowed to stand in the way of a faithful discharge of our obligations; Grin v. Shine, 187 U. S. 181, 23 Sup. Ct. 98,
47 L. Ed. 130.
When a person is held in custody as a fugi tive from justice under an extradition war rant in proper form and showing upon its face all that is required by law to be shown, he should not be discharged from custody until it is made clearly to appear that he is not a fugitive from justice within the mean ing of the constitution and laws of the• Unit ed States; People v. Pease,. 207 U. S. 100, 28 Sup. Ct. 58, 52 L. Ed. 121; Ex parte Massee, 95 S. C. 315, 79 S. E. 97.
The extradition act of Canada provides that a prisoner shall be surrendered only upon such evidences of criminality as would, under the Canadian law, justify his commit tal for trial if the crime'had been committed in Canada. Canadian law should determine whether the act alleged constitutes one of the extradition crimes; 6 R & S. 522; 4 U. C. P. R. 215. The further question as to whether the act must also be shown to be a crime according to the laws of the demand ing country was raised but not decided in 31 Can. L. J. 594.
The preliminary examination of a person sought to be extradited under the treaties of August 9, 1842, and July 12, 1889, between the United States and Great Britain on a conviction of murder, must be had in the state where he was arrested, in view of the tenth article of the earlier treaty providing that the alleged fugitive criminal shall be arrested and delivered up only upon such evidence of criminality as, according to the laws of the place where he is found, would justify his arrest and commitment for trial if the crime had been committed there, and of the proviso in the sundry civil appropria tions act of August 18, 1894, by which it is made the duty of a marshal arresting a per son charged with any offence to take him before the nearest United States commis sioner, or judicial officer having jurisdiction, for a hearing, commitment, or taking bail for trial, notwithstanding those parts of the act of August 12, 1848, and of R. S. § 5270, which provide for bringing the accused in ex tradition proceedings before the justice, judge or commissioner who issued the war rant of arrest; Pettit v. Walshe, 194 U. S. 205, 24 Sup. Ct. 657, 48 L. Ed. 938.