"To be a fugitive from justice . . . 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 avoiding a prosecution anticipated or begun, but simply that, having within a State committed that which by its laws constitutes a crime, when he sought to be subjected to its criminal process to answer for his offense, he has left its jurisdiction and is found within the territory of another."18

17The opinion continues: The case of United States v. Rauscher has no application to the question under consideration, because it proceeded upon the ground of a right given impliedly by the terms of a treaty between the United States and Great Britain, as well as expressly by the acts of Congress in the case of a fugitive surrendered to the United States by a foreign nation. That treaty which specified the offenses that were extraditable, and the statutes of the United States passed to carry it and other like treaties into effect, constituted the supreme law of the land, and were construed to exempt the extradited fugitive from trial for any other offense than that mentioned in the demand for surrender. There is nothing in the Constitution or statutes of the United States in reference to interstate rendition of fugitives from justice which can be regarded as establishing any compact between the States of the Union, such as the Ashburton treaty contains, limiting their operation to particular or designated offenses. Cm the contrary, the provisions of the organic and statutory law embrace crimes and offenses of every character and description punishable by the laws of the State where the forbidden acts are committed. It is questionable whether the States could constitutionally enter into any agreement or stipulation with each other for the purpose of defining or limiting the offenses for which fugitives would or should be surrendered. But it is settled by the decision of this court that, except in the case of a fugitive surrendered by a foreign government, there is nothing in the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States which exempts an offender, brought before the courts of a State for an offense against its laws, from trial and punishment, even though brought from another State by unlawful violence or by abuse of legal process." Citing Ker. v. Illinois, 110 U. S. 436; 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 225; 30 L. ed. 421; Mahon v. Justice, 127 U. S. 700; 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1204; 32 L. ed. 2S3; Cook v. Hart, 146 U. S. 133; 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 40; 46 L. ed. 934.

In Appleyard v. Massachusetts19 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."