condemnation had been entered in the District Court against the Alicia and her cargo for violation of the blockade. From this decree an appeal was allowed and taken to the Circuit Court; and on the eighteenth of May, 1867, an order was made in that court on the application of the parties in interest-there being at this time, in the Circuit Court, no order, judgment or decree in the case for the transfer of the cause to this court under the thirteenth section of the act of June 30, 1864, which enacted that prize causes, depending in the Circuit Court, might be so transferred. This court held that the cause was removed to the Circuit Court by the appeal from the decree of the District Court and that that decree was vacated by the appeal, and that the Circuit Court acquired full jurisdiction of the cause and was fully authorized to proceed to final hearing and decree. And Chief Justice Chase said (p. 573): "Nor can it be doubted that, under the Constitution, this court can exercise, in prize causes, appellate jurisdiction only. An appellate jurisdiction necessarily implies some judicial determination, some judgment, decree, or order of an inferior tribunal, from which an appeal has been taken. But in this case there had been no such order, judgment, or decree in the Circuit Court; and there was no subsisting decree in the District Court, from which an appeal could be taken. We are obliged to conclude that, in the provision for transfer, an attempt was inadvertently made to give to this court a jurisdiction withheld by the Constitution, and, consequently, that the order of transfer was without effect. The cause is still depending in the Circuit Court.”

The result is that the order must be set aside and the case remanded to the Circuit Court with directions to proceed in conformity with law.

Ordered accordingly.

VOL. CCXV-15

Opinion of the Court,

215 U. S.

SOUTHERN PACIFIC COMPANY v. INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION.

CERTIFICATE OF THE JUDGES OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA.

No. 275. Argued October 12, 13, 1909.-Decided December 6, 1909.

On authority of preceding case held that under $1 of the expediting act of February 11, 1903, c. 544, 32 Stat. 823, the case, although turning only on a point of law, cannot be certified to this court, in absence of any judgment, opinion, decision, or order determinative of the case below.

THE facts are stated in the opinion.

Mr. Maxwell Evarts, with whom Mr. F. C. Dillard, Mr. W. W. Cotton, Mr. P. F. Dunne and Mr. Robert S. Lovett were on the brief, for the Southern Pacific Company.

Mr. Wade H. Ellis, Assistant to the Attorney-General, with whom Mr. Luther M. Walter and Mr. Edwin P. Grosvenor, Special Assistants to the Attorney-General, were on the brief, for the Interstate Commerce Commission.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER delivered the opinion of the court.

This case comes here upon a certificate of the three judges of the Circuit Court for the Northern District of California. under § 1 of the expediting act of February 11, 1903, c. 544, 32 Stat. 823, as construed by them.

The suit was brought by the railroad companies in the Circuit Court to restrain the enforcement of an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission, which established a maxi

mum rate for the transportation of rough green fir lumber from points in the Willamette Valley, Oregon, to San Francisco. The case came on for argument before the three Circuit Judges upon the demurrer of the commission to the amended bill of complaint, to which was attached the opinion and order of the commission.

The Circuit Judges certified the whole case, and it comes here without opinion, decision or assignment of errors.

Upon the grounds stated in No. 339, Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission, ante, p. 216, the certificate is dismissed and the case remanded to the Circuit Court with directions to proceed therein in conformity with law.

Ordered accordingly.

YORDI v. NOLTE, UNITED STATES MARSHAL.

APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS.

No. 382. Submitted October 22, 1909.-Decided December 6, 1909.

In foreign extradition proceedings the complaint is sufficient to authorize the commissioner to act if it so clearly and explicitly states a treaty crime that the accused knows exactly what the charge is; nor need the record and depositions from the demanding country be actually fastened to the complaint.

In this case held that depositions in the possession of the officer of the demanding country making the complaint, which showed actual grounds for the prosecution and of which the commissioner had knowledge, from their use in a former proceeding, were admissible on the hearing before the commissioner and were also admissible for the purpose of vesting jurisdiction in him to issue the warrant.

166 Fed. Rep. 921, affirmed.

PABLO YORDI, being detained in custody by the United States marshal of the Western District of Texas, obtained from the District Court for that district a writ of habeas corpus to secure his release. He was charged in the republic of Mexico with the crime of "fraud and forgery of documents," and a warrant for his arrest was duly issued by the criminal judge of the city of Guadalajara. He avoided arrest in Mexico and fled to El Paso, Texas, where he was detained in prison, under an order of the United States commissioner, awaiting the issue by the proper authorities of an order for his extradition.

At the hearing on the habeas corpus it was stipulated that the crimes in the complaint made before the United States commissioner were extraditable offenses under the existing treaty between the United States and Mexico; that at the time of the hearing before the commissioner the complaint in the case made by A. V. Lomeli, consul of Mexico, was solely upon information and belief; that he had no actual or personal knowledge of the commission of any offense, but at the time of making the complaint the said Mexican consul had before him the record and depositions of the witnesses of the republic of Mexico in the proceedings before the criminal judge of Guadalajara.

There were three complaints made against Yordi. The first, made by the assistant United States attorney, was dismissed. The second and third were made by the Mexican consul.

Upon the hearing under the first complaint the record and evidence contained in the proceedings in Mexico were introduced in evidence before the commissioner, as they were also on the hearing on the second complaint. The commissioner found that there was probable cause to believe Yordi guilty of the offense of uttering a forged instrument in the State of Jalisco, United States of Mexico, on or about the twenty-sixth day of May, 1908, and that there was also probable cause to believe Yordi had committed the offense

of obtaining money by means of false device in the Mexican state mentioned. The commissioner therefore ordered Yordi to be held for extradition to the republic of Mexico on the charges alleged in the third and fourth counts of the complaint, and that he be committed to the county jail of El Paso County, Texas, to await the action of the proper authorities in the city of Washington, upon demand for his extradition to the republic of Mexico.

The case was heard before Maxey, District Judge, who discharged the writ of habeas corpus, and required the marshal to hold the petitioner in custody until a warrant of extradition was duly issued. From this final order this appeal was taken. Judge Maxey's opinion is reported in 166 Fed. Rep. 921, Ex parte Yordi.

Mr. Waters Davis for appellant.

Mr. Assistant Attorney-General Russell for appellee.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.

The contention of appellant's counsel is that, although the Mexican consul had possession of the record from Mexico and the depositions of the witnesses therein contained, which embodied the proceedings had before the judge at Guadalajara, Mexico, including the testimony of witnesses, which appeared to the judge amply sufficient to justify an order for the apprehension of the accused, nevertheless there was still necessary, in order for the commissioner to take jurisdiction to hear the application that either the record from Mexico should be attached to the complaint or that the complaint should disclose upon its face the sources of the consul's information. This record from Mexico was not only before the Mexican consul when he made the complaint against Yordi, now under consideration, but the commissioner was