political offenders were included in it. For this was not a compact of peace and comity between separate nations, who had no claim on each other for mutual support, but a compact binding them to give aid and assistance to each other in extending their laws, and to support each other in preserving order and law within its confines, whenever such aid was needed and required, for it is manifest that the statesmen who framed the Constitution were fully sensible that from the complex character of the government, it must fail unless the States mutually supported each other and the General Government; and that nothing would be more likely to disturb its peace, and end its concord, than permitting an offender against the laws of a State, by passing over a mathematical line which divides it from another, to defy its process, and stand ready, under the protection of the State, to repeat the offense as soon as another opportunity offered." This case decided, however, that if the Governor of a State refuses to grant requisition papers, he cannot be compelled to do so by the Federal Government. The concluding words of the case on this point are: "And it would seem that when the Constitution was framed, and when this law (i. e., the Act of 1793) was passed, it was evidently believed that a sense of justice and of mutual interest would insure a faithful execution of this constitutional provision by the executive of every State, for every State had an equal interest in the execution of a compact absolutely essential to their peace and well being in their internal concerns, as well as members of the Union; hence, the use of the words ordinarily employed when an undoubted obligation is required to be performed, 'it shall be his duty.'

"But if the Governor of Ohio refuses to discharge

this duty, there is no power delegated to the General Government, either through the judicial department or any other department, to use any coercive means to compel him."

There have been a number of instances in the history of the United States where the extradition of criminals from one State to another has been refused for political or quasi-political reasons. In 1839, Governor Seward of New York refused the request of the Governor of Virginia for the extradition of three colored sailors, who, it was charged, had aided a slave to escape. In retaliation, the Governor of Virginia refused to grant the extradition of a forger who had fled from New York. In 1891, Governor Hill of New York, refused to honor requisition papers issued by Governor Buckley of Connecticut, upon the grounds that Buckley was not the legal Governor of the State. The latest instance has been the continued refusal of the Governor of Indiana to permit Mr. Taylor to be extradited to Kentucky.

In order for it to be possible to extradite a person, he must be actually a fugitive from justice. He must have committed the crime within the State, to which it is proposed to remove him, and then fled from justice. When, however, a person in one State, sets in operation a chain of events which culminate with the committing of a crime in another State, then he is constructively present in the State where the crime took place, and can be extradited thereto; e. g., where a principal sends an agent into another State to dispose of forged notes, or send poisoned candy through the mails. It has been held, however," that where a person standing in one State shoots and kills a person across the line 19 State vs. Hall, 114 N. C., 909; and 41 American State Reports' 822.

in another State, he cannot be extradited. It is not probable, however, that this decision would ever be followed in another case.

This provision will apply to persons fleeing from any State to or from a territory, or the District of Columbia, but will not authorize a Governor of a State to honor the requisition of the chief of an Indian tribe.

CHAPTER XI.

AMENDING THE CONSTITUTION.

SECTION 112. HOW THE CONSTITUTION MAY BE
AMENDED.

No system of government can remain permanently unchanged. The most enduring governments have been those under which it was possible to alter political institutions to meet changed conditions.

The questions as to method by which the Constitution could be amended, was one of the new problems, which the members of the Constitutional Convention were called upon to solve. The methods, both of the English Constitution, and that of the Articles of Confederation, were entirely inappropriate for the new Constitution. Under the English system, where no distinction as to the method of their repeal or amendment is made between the different classes of laws; any of the laws which go to make up the socalled English Constitution, can be altered or repealed by Act of Parliament. Under the Articles of Confederation the unanimous vote of all the states was required to change these articles, and experience had shown that it was practically impossible to ever obtain their unanimous consent for any change, no matter how necessary and important.

The object of the framers of the Constitution was to make such provision on to this point, as would make it sufficiently difficult to amend the Constitution to give stability to that instrument; but, on the other

hand, not so difficult as to prevent such amendments as were felt to be necessary by a large majority of the people. The method as finally adopted by the Constitutional Convention, and contained in the fifth article of the Constitution, is as follows:

"The Congress, whenever two-thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution; or, on the application of the legislatures of two-thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three-fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress: Provided, that no amendment which may be made prior to the year 1808, shall in any manner affect the first and fourth clauses in the ninth section of the first article; and that no State, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate."

The veto power of the president does not extend to the case of amendments to the Constitution.1

The Constitution provides two methods by which amendments to the Constitution may be proposed, and two methods by which such proposed amendments may be adopted. Amendments may be proposed either by a two-thirds vote of both branches of Congress or by a special Constitutional Convention called by Congress upon the request of the legislatures of two-thirds of the states. Amendments may be ratified either by the state legislatures or by special conventions in each state. Congress may determine 'Hollingsworth vs. Virginia, 3 Dallas, 378.