Surrender of the 167, s. 3, v. 9, p. SEC. 5272. It shall be lawful for the Secretary of State, under his hand and seal of office, to order the person so committed to be deliv- fugitive. ered to such person as shall be authorized, in the name and on behalf 12 Aug., 1848, c. of such foreign government, to be tried for the crime of which such 302 person shall be so accused, and such person shall be delivered up In re Kaine, 14 accordingly; and it shall be lawful for the person so authorized to hold How., 103. such person in custody, and to take him to the territory of such foreign government, pursuant to such treaty. If the person so accused shall escape out of any custody to which he shall be committed, or to which he shall be delivered, it shall be lawful to retake such person in the same manner as any person accused of any crime against the laws in force in that part of the United States to which he shall so escape, may be retaken on an escape. Time allowed for extradition. 12 Aug., 1848, c. 167, s. 4, v. 9, p. SEC. 5273. Whenever any person who is committed under this Title or any treaty, to remain until delivered up in pursuance of a requisition, is not so delivered up and conveyed out of the United States within two calendar months after such commitment, over and above the time 303 actually required to convey the prisoner from the jail to which he was committed, by the readiest way, out of the United States, it shall be lawful for any judge of the United States, or of any State, upon application made to him by or on behalf of the person so committed, and upon proof made to him that reasonable notice of the intention to make such application has been given to the Secretary of State, to order the person so committed to be discharged out of custody, unless sufficient cause is shown to such judge why such discharge ought not to be ordered. Continuance of SEC. 5274. The provisions of this Title relating to the surrender of persons who have committed crimes in foreign countries shall continue provisions limited. in force during the existence of any treaty of extradition with any foreign government, and no longer. SEC. 5275. Whenever any person is delivered by any foreign government to an agent of the United States, for the purpose of being brought within the United States and tried for any crime of which he is duly accused, the President, shall have power to take all necessary measures for the transportation and safe-keeping of such accused person, and for his security against lawless violence, until the final conclusion of his trial for the crimes or offenses specified in the warrant of extradition, and until his final discharge from custody or imprisonment for or on account of such crimes or offenses, and for a reasonable time thereafter, and may employ such portion of the land or naval forces of the United States, or of the militia thereof, as may be necessary for the safe-keeping and protection of the accused. Ibid., s. 5. Protection of the accused. 3 Mar., 1869, c. 141, s. 1, v. 15, p. 337. Powers of agent receiving offend ment. SEC. 5276. Any person duly appointed as agent to receive, in behalf of the United States, the delivery, by a foreign government, of any per- ers delivered by a son accused of crime committed within the jurisdiction of the United foreign govern States, and to convey him to the place of his trial, shall have all the powers of a marshal of the United States, in the several districts through which it may be necessary for him to pass with such prisoner, so far as such power is requisite for the prisoner's safe-keeping. Ibid., s. 2, p. 338. Penalty for op Ibid., s. 3. SEC. 5277. Every person who knowingly and willfully obstructs, resists, or opposes such agent in the execution of his duties, or who rescues posing agent, etc. or attempts to rescue such prisoner, whether in the custody of the agent or of any officer or person to whom his custody has lawfully been committed, shall be punishable by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars, and by imprisonment for not more than one year. or territory. SEC. 5278. Whenever the executive authority of any State or Terri- Fugitives from tory demands any person as a fugitive from justice, of the executive justice of a state authority of any State or Territory to which such person has fled, and Feb., 1793, c. produces a copy of an indictment found or an affidavit made before a 7, 121, 1, p. 302. nison, 13 Pet., 540; Ibid., 14 Pet., 540 Prigg v. Pennsyl 618; Com. v. Den nison, 24 vania, 16 Pet., 66; Taylor v. 366 (369). Holmes v. Jen- magistrate of any State or Territory, charging the person demanded with having committed treason, felony, or other crime, certified as authentic by the governor or chief magistrate of the State or Territory from whence the person so charged has fled, it shall be the duty of the executive authority of the State or Territory to which such person has fled to cause him to Taintor, 16 Wall., be arrested and secured, and to cause notice of the arrest to be given to the executive authority making such demand, or to the agent of such authority appointed to receive the fugitive, and to cause the fugitive to be delivered to such agent when he shall appear. If no such agent appears within six months from the time of the arrest, the prisoner may be discharged. All costs or expenses incurred in the apprehending, securing, and transmitting such fugitive to the State or Territory making such demand, shall be paid by such State or Territory. Penalty for resisting agent, etc. Ibid., s. 2. Arrest of deserting seamen from foreign vessels. 2 Mar., 1829, c. 41, v. 4, p. 359. SEC. 5279. Any agent so appointed who receives the fugitive into his custody, shall be empowered to transport him to the State or Territory from which he has fled. And every person who, by force, sets at liberty or rescues the fugitive from such agent while so transporting him, shall be fined not more than five hundred dollars, or imprisoned not more than one year. SEC. 5280. On application of a consul or vice-consul of any foreign government having a treaty with the United States, stipulating for the restoration of seamen deserting, made in writing, stating that the person therein named has deserted from a vessel of any such government, while in any port of the United States, and on proof by the exhibition of the register of the vessel, ship's roll, or other official document, that the person named belonged, at the time of desertion, to the crew of such vessel, it shall be the duty of any court, judge, commissioner of any circuit court, justice, or other magistrate, having competent power, to issue warrants to cause such person to be arrested for examination. If, on examination, the facts stated are found to be true, the person arrested not being a citizen of the United States, shall be delivered up to the consul or vice-consul, to be sent back to the dominions of any such government, or, on the request and at the expense of the consul or vice-consul, shall be detained until the consul or vice-consul finds an opportunity to send him back to the dominions of any such government. No person so arrested shall be detained more than two months after his arrest; but at the end of that time shall be set at liberty, and shall not be again molested for the same cause. If any such deserter shall be found to have committed any crime or offense, his surrender may be delayed until the tribunal before which the case shall be depending, or may be cognizable, shall have pronounced its sentence, and such sentence shall have been carried into effect. See R. S. of Ohio, $$ 95, 96, 97. If the governor of one state make a requisition on the governor of another state for the surrender of a fugitive from justice, and the case is shown to be within the provisions of the Constitution of the United States (Art. 4, 22), and the above section 5278, no discretion is vested in the latter governor, but it is his imperative duty to issue the warrant of extradition. Work v. Corrington, 34 O. S., 64. But if a warrant for the surrender of a fugitive from justice is obtained in a case in which it should not have been issued-that is, if the warrant of extradition is to be used merely for the advancement of private ends, or the papers upon which the proceeding is based are plainly defective in matter of substance-the governor may revoke it, whether issued by himself or his decessor. Ib. pre And where such warrant has been revoked by the governor, no inquiry will be made, in a proceeding on habeas corpus on behalf of the alleged fugitive, as to the grounds of such revo cation, although, at the time of the revocation, the fugitive may have been in custody of the agent of the demanding state. 16. The certificate of authentication provided for in the above section 5278, is not required to be in any particular form, and where the language employed by the demanding governor in the requisition shows the copy of an indictment annexed thereto to be authentic, it is sufficient. Ex parte Sheldon, 34 O. S., 319. It is no ground for discharging a fugitive from justice on habeas corpus that the indictment, after charging embezzlement, by way of conclusion in the same count, also avers that "so" the defendant committed larceny Ib. Where, from the authenticated copy of the indictment annexed to the requisition, it appears that the fugitive stands charged in the demanding state with embezzlement, the printed statutes of such state, purporting to be published by its authority, may be received to show that embez zlement is made a crime by the laws of that state. Ib. RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS—ADMISSIBILITY—AUTHENTICATION. 165 After an alleged fugitive from justice has been arrested on a requisition warrant, he will not be discharged on the ground that there was no evidence before the executive issuing the warrant, showing that the fugitive had fled from the demanding state to avoid prosecution. Ib. The provision of the Constitution of the United States (Art. 4, 2, and the above section 5278, are confined to persons who are actually, and not merely constructively, present in the demanding state when they commit the acts charged against them; and in a proceeding on habeas corpus, for discharge from arrest on a warrant of extradition issued by a governor, in complia ce with the requisition of the governor of another state, parol evidence is admissible to show that there had been no such actual presence of the accused in the demanding state. Wilcox v. Nolze, 34 O. S., 520. of legislative acts cial proceedings of States, etc. and proof of judi 26 May, 1790, c. 11, v. 1, p. 122. 27 Mar., 1804, c. 299. Harwood, 7 Cr., 40s; Alill's. Dur Cr., 481; U; Ferguson v. SECTION 905. The acts of the legislature of any State or Territory, or Authentication of any country subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, shall be authenticated by having the seals of such State, Territory, or country affixed thereto. The records and judicial proceedings of the courts of any State or Territory, or of any such country, shall be proved or admitted in any other court within the United States, by the attestation of the clerk, and the seal of the court annexed, if there be a seal, 56, s. 2, v. 2, p. together with a certificate of the judge, chief justice, or presiding magistrate, that the said attestation is in due form. And the said records and judicial proceedings, so authenticated, shall have such faith and credit given to them in every court within the United States as they have S. v. Amedy, 11 by law or usage in the courts of the State from which they are taken. Wh., 392; Buckner v. Finley, 2 Pet., 592; Owings v. Hull, 9 Pet., 627; Urtetiqui v. D' Arbel, 9 Pet., 700; McElmoyle v. Cohen, 13 Pet., 312; Stacey v. Thrasher, 6 How., 44; Bank of Alabama v. Dalton, 9 How., 522; D'Arcy v. Ketchum, 11 How., 165; Railroad v. Howard, 13 How., 307; Booth v. Clark, 17 How., 322; Mason v. Lawrason, 1 Cr. C. C., 199; Buford v. Hickman, Hemp., 232; Craig v. Brown, Pet. C. C., 354; Stewart v. Gray, Hemp., 91; Gardner v. Lindo, 1 Cr. C. C., 78; Trigg v. Conway, Hemp., 538; Turner v. Waddington, 3 Wash. C. C., 126; Catlin v. Underhill, 4 McLean, 199; Morgan v. Curtenius, 4 McLean, 366; Hale v. Brotherton, 3 Cr. C. C., 594; Mewster v. Spald ing, 6 McLean, 21; Parrot v. Habersham, 1 Cr. C. C., 14; Talcott v. Delaware Ins. Co., 2 Wash. C. C., 449; James v. Stookey, 1 Wash. C. C., 330; Bennett v. Eennett, District Court, Oregon, 1867; Christmas v. Russell, 5 Wall, 290; Turnbull v. Payson, 95 U. S., 418; Ohio v. Hinchman, 27 Pa. St., 479; Silver Lake Bank v. Harding, 5 O., 545; Stockwell v. Coleman, 10 O. S., 33; Pennywit v. Foote, 27 O. S., 600; Sipes v. Whitney, 30 O. S., 69; 1 Curwen's Sts., 105. Proofs of rec offices not pertain 298, 299. 21 Feb., 1871, c.. SEC. 906. All records and exemplifications of books, which may be kept in any public office of any State or Territory, or of any country ords, etc., kept in subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, not appertaining to a ing to courts. court, shall be proved or admitted in any court or office in any other 27 Mar., 1801, c. State or Territory, or in any such country, by the attestation of the 56, ss. 1, 2, v. 2, pp. keeper of the said records or books, and the seal of his office annexed, if there be a seal, together with a certificate of the presiding justice of 62, v. 16, p. 419. the court of the county, parish, or district in which such office may be kept, or of the governor, or secretary of state, the chancellor or keeper of the great seal, of the State, or Territory, or country, that the said attestation is in due form, and by the proper officers. If the said certificate is given by the presiding justice of a court, it shall be further authenticated by the clerk or prothonotary of the said court, who shall certify, under his hand and the seal of his office, that the said presiding justice is duly commissioned and qualified; or, if given by such governor, secretary, chancellor, or keeper of the great seal, it shall be under States. the great seal of the State, Territory, or country aforesaid in which it is made. And the said records and exemplifications, so authenticated, shall have such faith and credit given to them in every court and office within the United States as they have by law or usage in the courts or offices of the State, Territory, or country; as aforesaid, from which they are taken. SEC. 907. It shall be lawful for any keeper or person having the custody of laws, judgments, orders, decrees, journals, correspondence, or other public documents of any foreign government or its agents, relating to the title to lands claimed by or under the United States, on the application of the head of one of the Departments, the Solicitor of the TreasCopies of for- ury, or the Commissioner of the General Land-Office, to authenticate eign records, etc., relating to land copies thereof under his hand and seal, and to certify them to be correct titles in the United and true copies of such laws, judgments, orders, decrees, journals, correspondence, or other public documents, respectively; and when such copies are certified by an American minister or consul, under his hand and seal of office, to be true copies of the originals, they shall be sealed up by him and returned to the Solicitor of the Treasury, who shall file them in his office, and cause them to be recorded in a book to be kept for that purpose. A copy of any such law, judgment, order, decree, journal, correspondence, or other public document, so filed, or of the same so recorded in said book, may be read in evidence in any court, where the title to land claimed by or under the United States may come into question, équally with the originals. 22 Feb., 1849, c. 2 Mar., 1849, c. 61, s. 1, v. 9, p. 346. 82, v. 9, p. 350. REMOVAL OF CAUSES FROM STATE TO FEDERAL COURTS. Removal of suits against aliens,etc where amount of $500 in dispute. 24 Sept., 1789, c. 20, s. 12, v. 1, p. 79. 27 July, 1866, c. 288, v. 14, p. 306. 2 Mar., 1867, c. 196, v. 14, p. 558. 3 Mar., 1875, c. pp. 471, 472, 473. 639. Removal of cause-aliens-citizens of dif- 645. Removal-where copy refused by clerk of SECTION 639. Any suit commenced in any State court, wherein the amount in dispute, exclusive of costs, exceeds the sum or value of five hundred dollars, to be made to appear to the satisfaction of said court, may be removed, for trial, into the circuit court, for the district where such suit is pending, next to be held after the filing of the petition for such removal hereinafter mentioned, in the cases and in the manner stated in this section. First. When the suit is against an alien, or is by a citizen of the State 137, ss. 2, 7.9. v. 18, wherein it is brought, and against a citizen of another State, it may be removed on the petition of such defendant, filed in said State court at D'Arcy, 9 Pet., the time of entering his appearance in said State court. Eurtetiqui v. Longest, 16 Pet., 692; Gordon v. Second. When the suit is against an alien and a citizen of the State 97; Kanousev wherein it is brought, or is by a citizen of such State against a citizen Martin, 15 How., 198; Parker v. of the same, and a citizen of another State, it may be so removed, as Hem against said alien or citizen of another State, upon the petition of such v. Davis, 18 How., defendant, filed at any time before the trial or final hearing of the cause, tar, 23 How., 454; if, so far as it relates to him, it is brought for the purpose of restraining Overman, 18 467; Green v. Cus Bushnell v. Ken Insurance Co. v. Wall., 677; Railway Com. v. Whitton, 13 Wall, 270; City Lexington or enjoining him, or is a suit in which there can be a final determination West v. Aurora of the controversy, so far as concerns him, without the presence of the City, Wall, 139; other defendants as parties in the cause. But such removal shall not nedy, 9 Wall, 387; take away or prejudice the right of the plaintiff to proceed at the same weide, time with the suit in the State court, as against the other defendants. Third. When a suit is between a citizen of the State in which it is brought and a citizen of another State, it may be so removed on the petition of the latter, whether he be plaintiff or defendant, filed at any time before the trial or final hearing of the suit, if, before or at the time of filing said petition, he makes and files in said State court an affidavit, stating that he has reason to believe and does believe that, from preju dice or local influence, he will not be able to obtain justice in such State court. In order to such removal, the petitioner in the cases aforesaid must, at the time of filing his petition therefor, offer in said State court good and sufficient surety for his entering in such circuit court, on the first day of its session, copies of said process against him, and of all pleadings, depositions, testimony, and other proceedings in the cause, or, in said cases where a citizen of the State in which the suit is brought is a defendant, copies of all process, pleadings, depositions, testimony, and other proceedings in the cause concerning or affecting the petitioner, and also for his there appearing and entering special bail in the cause, if special bail was originally requisite therein. It shall thereupon be the duty of the State court to accept the surety and to proceed no further in the cause against the petitioner, and any bail that may have been originally taken shall be discharged. When the said copies are entered as aforesaid in the circuit court, the cause shall there proceed in the same manner as if it had been brought there by original process, and the copies of pleadings shall have the same force and effect, in every respect and for every purpose, as the original pleadings would have had by the laws and practice of the courts of such State if the cause had remained in the State court. Butler, 14 Wall, 282; Case of the Sewing Machine Com's, 18 Wall.. 553; Muns v. Du pent, 2 Wash. C. C., 463: Beardsley v Torrey, 4 Wash. C. C., 286; 'right v. Wells, 1 Pet. C. C., 220; Ladd v. Tudor, 3 Wood & M. C. C., 325; 13; Brownell v. C. C., 207; Giery. Gregg, 4 McLean, 202; Wilson v. lodgett 4 Mc Y. Duncan, 5 Mcbard v. Northern 3 Blatch, England S rew 111; Barney v. Lean, 342; Hub 84: Bliven v. New Co.,3 Blatch. C.C., Globe Bank, 5 Sore Co. v. Bliv 240; Suydam v Ewing, 2 Blatch. en,3 Blatch. C. C., C. C., 359; Sayles v Northwestern C. C., 212; Bris Ins. Co., 2 Curt. tol v. Chapman, 34 How. Pr., 140; Shelby v. Hoffman, 7 Ohio St., 450; In re Turner, 3 Wall., Jr., 258: In re Girard 3 Wall, Jr., 263; Ward v. Arredund, 1 Paine, 410; McVaughter v. Cassily, 4 McLean, 351; Spraggins v. County Court, Cooke, 160; Gibson v. Johnson, Peters C. C., 44; Jersey v. Babcock, 4 Wash. C. C., 344; Charter Oak Ins. Co. v. Star Ins. Co., 6 Blatch. C. C., 208; Roberts v. Nelson, 8 Blatch. C. C., 74; Beecher v. Gillett, 1 Dill. C. C., 308; Hatch v. Railroad, 6 Blatch. C. C., 105; Bixby v. Couse, 8 Blatch. C. C., 73; Field v. Larmsdale, 1 Deady, 288; Dart v. McKinney, 9 Blatch., 359; Akerly v. Vilas, 1 Abb. C. C., 284; Fields v. Lamb, 1 Deady, 430; Sands v. Smith, 1 Dillon, 290; Johnson v. Monell, 1 Wool. C. C., 390; Case v. Douglass, 1 Dillon, 299; Boggs v. Willard, 16 Int. Rev. Rec., 22; Insurance Company v. Dunn, 19 Wall, 214; Stevenson v. Williams, 19 Wall., 572; Knapp v. Railroad, 20 Wall., 117; Gardner v. Brown, 21 Wall., 36; Vannevar v. Bryant, 21 Wall., 41; Gaines v. Fuentes et al., 92 U. S., 10; Hurst v. Western and Atlantic R. R. Co., 93 U. S., 71; Kimball v. Evans, 93 U. S., 320; Lowe v. Williams, 94 U. S., 650; Merchants National Bank v. Wheeler, 13 Blatch., 218; Warner v. Pennsylvania R. R. Co., 13 Blatch. 231; Broadway v. Eisner, 13 Blatch., 366; Petterson v. Chapman, 13 Blatch., 395; Allen v. Ryerson, 2 Dill., 501; Waggener v. Cheek, 2 Dill., 560; McGinnity v. White, 3 Dill., 350; Kellogg v. Hughes, 3 Dill., 357; Millett v. Milwaukee R. R. Co., 3 Dill., 461; Wheeler v. Bates, 6 Biss., 88; Warren v. Wisconsin R. R. Co., 6 Biss., 425; Chicago v. Gage, 6 Biss., 467; Scott v. C. & S. R. R. Co., 6 Biss., 529; Gardner v. Brown, 21 Wall., 36; Vannevar v. Bryant, 21 Wall, 41; Ins. Co. v. Sechner, 95 U. S., 183; Amory v. Amory, 95 U. S., 186; Gold-Washing & Water Co. v. Keyes, 96 U. S,. 199; Ludlow v. Kidd, 3 O., 48; Shelby v. Hoffman, 7 O. S., 450; Hadley v. Dunlap, 10 O. S., 1; State v. Fairfield Com. Pleas, 15 O. S., 377; Sifford v. Beaty, 12 O. S., 189; Clippenger v. Missouri, etc., Ins. Co., 26 O. S., 404; Balt. & O. R. R. Co. v. Cary, 28 O. S., 208; Railway v. Stringer, 32 Ó. S., 468. Removal of suits against corpora under a law of United States. 27 July, 1865, c. 255, s. 2, v. 15, p. 227. 27 July, 1866, c. 288, s. 1, v. 14, p. SEC. 640. Any suit commenced in any court other than a circuit or district court of the United States against any corporation other than a tions organized banking corporation, organized under a law of the United States, or against any member thereof as such member for any alleged liability of such corporation, or of such member as a member thereof, may be removed, for trial, in the circuit court for the district where such suit is pending, upon the petition of such defendant, verified by oath, stating that such defendant has a defense arising under or by virtue of the Constitution or of any treaty or law of the United States. Such removal, in all other respects, shall be governed by the provisions of the preceding section. 306. Fisk v. Union P. R. R., S Blatch., 343; Jones v. Oce anic Steam Navigation Company, 11 Blatch., 406; Turton v. Union Pacific R. R. Co., 3 Dill., 366; Farmers' Loan Company v. Ma. |