The motives which prompt the governor to issue his warrant are held not proper sub jects of judicial inquiry ; In re Moyer, 12 Idaho 250, 85 Pac. 897, 12 L. R. A. (N. S.) 227, 118 Am. St. Rep. 214; Com. v. Superintend ent of Philadelphia County Prison, 220 Pa. 401, 69 Atl. 916, 21 L. R. A. (N. S.) 939. Ju risdiction to take the action complained of is the test ; id. The governor need not demand independent proof, apart from the requisition papers, that accused was a fugitive from jus tice ; Pettibone v. Nichols, 203 U. S. 192, 27 Sup. Ct. 111, 51 L. Ed. 148. When the person for whom a requisition is made is in prison in the asylum state under conviction of crime, the governor cannot deliver him up ; Opinion of Justices, 201 Mass. 609, 89 N. E. 174, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 799, and.note.
An indictment is not a prerequisite to ex tradition ; Pierce v. Creecy, 210 U. S. 387, 28 Sup. Ct. 714, 52 L. Ed. 1113. Extradition is a mere proceeding in securing arrest and• at tention ; a complaint before a committing magistrate is a charge of crime; In re Strauss, 197 U. S. 324, 25 Sup. Ct. 535, 49 L. Ed. 774.
The indictment, in order to constitute a sufficient charge of crime to warrant inter state rendition; need show no more than that the accused was substantially charged with crime ; Pierce v. Creecy, 210 U. S. 387, 28 Sup. Ct. 714, 52 L. Ed. 1113. If more were required, it would impose upon courts at the trial under writs of habeas corpus the duty of a critical examination of the laws of the states with whose jurisprudence and crim inal procedure they can have but a general acquaintance.
If the accusation is by affidavit, it should be sufficiently full and explicit to justify ar rest and commitment for hearing; Ex parte Smith, 3 McLean 121, Fed. Cas. No. 12,968; In re Heyward, 1 Sandf. (N. I.) 701; In re Fetter, 23 N. J. L. 311, 57 Am. Dee. 382 ; State v. Patterson,. 116 Mo. 505, 22 S. W. 696; In re Hooper, 52 Wis. 699, 58 N. W. 741. The demand must be made by the governor of the state ; Com. v. Hall, 9 Gray (Mass.) 262, 69 Am. Dec. 285.
The accused must have fled from the state in which the crime was committed; and of this the executive authority of the state up on which the demand is made should be rea sonably satisfied. This is sometimes done by affidavit. The governor upon whom the de mand is made acts judicially, so far as to see whether the ease is a proper one ; In re Greenough, 31 Vt. 279 ; but he cannot look behind the indictment in which the crime is charged; In re Voorhees, 32 N. J. L. 145; Taylor v. Taintor, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 366, 21 L. Ed. 287. The duty to surrender the fugitive is obligatory ; Kentucky'v. Dennison, 24 How. (U. S.) 103, 16 L. Ed. 717; Taylor v. Taintor, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 370, 21 L. Ed. 287. But in the case of a conflict of jurisdiction between the two states the surrender may be poned; Taylor v. Taintor, 16 Wall. (U. S.) 366, 21 L. Ed. 287 ; In re Briscoe, 51 How. Pr. .(N. Y.) 422 ; Corn. v. Wright, 158 Mass. 149, 33 N. E. 82, 19 L. R. A. 206, 35 Am. St. Rep. 475.
It is not necessary that the party charged should have left the state in which the crime is alleged to have been committed, after an indictment found or for the purpose of es caping a prosecution anticipated or begun ; Ex parte Brown, 28 Fed. 653 ; but simply that having committed a crime within a state, when he is sought to be subjected to its criminal process, he has left its jurisdic tion and is found within another state ; In re Reggal, 114 U. S. 642, 5 Sup. Ct. 1148, 29 L. Ed. 250 ; Renaud v. Abbott, 116 U. S. 287,, 6
Sup. Ct. 1194, 29 L. Ed. 629 ; Streep v. U. S., 160 U. S. 128, 16 Sup. Ct. 244, 40 L Ed. 365 ; Moyer v. Nichols, 203 U. S. 221, 27 Sup. Ct. 121, 51 L. Ed. 160 ; Ex parte Brown, 28 Fed. 653 ; In re Cook, 49 Fed. 833 ; In re White, 55 Fed. 54, 5 C. C. A. 29; In re Bloch, 87 Fed. 981; Kingsbury's Case, 106 Mass. 223. Whether the motive for leaving was to es cape prosecution or his return to answer the charges against him is equally withifik the spirit and purpose of the statute; and the simple fact that he was not within the state to answer its criminal process, when required, renders him a fugitive from jus tice, regardless of his purpose in leaving; State v. Richter, 37 Minn. 436, 35 N. W. 9. That the accused did not believe he had com mitted any crime against the demanding state will :not prevent his being a fugitive from justice ; Appleyard v. Massachusetts, 203 U. S: 222, 27 Sup. Ct. 122, 51 L. Ed. 161, 7 Ann. Cas. 1073 ; or that he commits a crime within a state and then simply returns to his own home' in another state ; Ex. parte Swearingen, 13 S. C. 74; In re Mohr, 73 Ala.
503, 49 Am. Rep. 63. He is held not to be a fugitive from justice if be never been in the demanding state, but is alleged to have obtained money by false pretences through the mails; State of Tennessee v. Jackson, 36 Fed. 258, 1 L. R. A. 370. In In re Robinston, 29 Neb. 135, 45 N. W. 267, 8 L. R. A. 398, 26 Am. St. Rep. 378, the court or dered the discharge of a prisoner because he had been forcibly brought into the state with out requisition papers; and to the same ef fect, State v. Simmons, 39 Kan. 262, 18 Pac. 177. Crimes which are not actually, but only constructively, committed within the demand ing state do not fall within the class of cas es embraced by the constitution or acts of congress. Not that the jitrisdiction to try the crime is lacking, but that no one can in any sense be alleged to have fled from a state in which he has never been corporally pres ent since the commission of the crime; In re Mohr, 73 Ala. 503, 49 Am. Rep. 63; In re Reggel, 114 U. S. 642, 5 Sup. Ct. 1148, 29 L. Ed. 250 ; State v. Hall, 115 N. C. 811, 20 S. E. 729, 28 L. R. A. 289, 44 Am. St. Rep. 501, where the constructive presence of a murder er in the state, where the victim was struck by a bullet fired across the state boundary, was held not sufficient to make him a fugi tive from that state when found in the state from which the shot was In 'criminal cases, a forcible abduction is no sufficient reason why the party should not answer when brought within the jurisdiction of the court which has the right to try him for such offence, and presents no valid .ob jection to his trial in such court; Ker v. Ill inois, 119 Ti. S. 436, 7 Sup. Ct. 225, 30 L. Ed. 421; Ex parte Scott, 9 Barn. 446 ; State v. Smith, 1 Bail. (S. C.) 283, 19 Am. Dec. 679; Dows' Case, 18 Pa. 37. Although it has been frequently held that if a defend ant in a civil case be brought within the pres ence of the court by a trick or a device, the service will be set aside, and he will be dis charged from custody ; Wells v. Gurney, 8 Barn. & C. 769; Metcalf v. Clark, 41 Barb. (N. Y.) 45. The law will not permit a person to be kidnapped or decoyed within the juris diction for the purpose of being compelled to answer to a mere private claim, but in crim inal cases the interests of the public override that which is, after all, a mere privilege from arrest ; In re Johnson, 167 U. S. 120, 17 Sup. Ct. 735, 42 L. Ed. 103.