Statement of Facts. refuge in the State of California, which is certified by the Governor of the State of Oregon to be authentic : "You are, therefore, required to arrest and secure the said C. II. Bayley, wherever he may be found within this State, and to deliver him into the custody of the said W. L. Robb, to be taken back to the State from which he fled, pursuant to the said requisition, he, the said W. L. Robb, defraying all costs and expenses incurred in the arrest and securing of said fugitive. You will make return to this department of the manner in which this warrant has been executed. "In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the great seal of the State to be affixed, this, the twentieth day of November, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and eighty-three. "GEORE STONEMAN, "Governor of the State of California, "THOS. L. THOMPSON, Secretary of State." Bayley sued out a writ of habeas corpus from the judge of the Superior Court for the City and County of San Francisco, directed to Robb, and commanding him to have the body of the petitioner before said judge, together with the time and cause of his detention, &c. His application for the writ proceeded upon the ground that the imprisonment and detention were illegal, in that "no copy of an indictment found or affidavit made, before a magistrate, charging petitioner with any crime, was produced to the Governor of California," and consequently, that the warrant of arrest was issued without compliance with the act of Congress. Robb made return that he held Bayley "under the authority of the United States," as evidence whereof he produced a copy of the warrant of the Governor of California, with his commission from the Governor of Oregon, authorizing him to take and receive the prisoner as a fugitive from justice. refne ged with crime, wid C. II. Bayley, on the ground that, surrendered, is not an officer ited States, he ought not to produce former adjudications of this cou honorable Superior Court has no He Statement of Facts. power or authority to proceed in the premises." For this refusal-the court finding that the body of the petitioner could be produced-Robb was adjudged guilty of contempt of court, and by order of the judge he was arrested by the sheriff and committed to jail until he "obeys said writ and produces the body of the said C. H. Bayley," or "until he be otherwise legally discharged." He thereupon sued out a writ of habeas corpus from the Supreme Court of California. His application proceeded on the ground that Bayley was in his custody "under and by virtue of the authority of the United States, and that said Superior Court had no jurisdiction to proceed in the premises," and "his [Robb's] imprisonment is contrary to the laws of the United States and in excess of the jurisdiction of said court." Upon hearing, the writ was dismissed, and Robb remanded to the custody of the sheriff. "It is no part of our duty," said the Supreme Court of California, "to decide whether the authority under which Robb holds the prisoner Bayley is sufficient or not. Neither is it incumbent on us to decide whether Bayley is held under the authority of the United States, and if so, how far it is competent for the court below to inquire into the legality of the proceedings under which he is held. Whether an affidavit or indictment must accompany the requisition or not; whether the recitals in the governor's warrant of arrest are conclusive or simply prima facie evidence of the facts they recite, all these are matters for the consideration of the court issuing the writ and before whom the prisoner is to be brought. The only inquiry in this case relates to the power of the court below to compel the production of the body of the prisoner before it, so that the cause of his imprisonment and detention can be inquired into, and on this point we have no doubt. It was not the duty of the court issuing the writ, nor was it obliged to accept as true, the return of the party. It was within the jurisdiction of the court, at least, to inquire into the facts of the case and the alleged cause of detention, and to this end it was proper that the prisoner should be brought into the presence of the court, in obedience to the command of the writ, whereupon the prisoner would have had a right to Opinion of the Court. traverse the return. People v. Donohue, 84 N. Y. 438; People v. Brady, 56 Id. 182; Norris v. Newton, 5 McLean, 92; State v. Schlemn, 4 Harr. (Del.) 577. This the petitioner refused to do, and by such refusal was guilty of a contempt of court." From the judgment dismissing the writ and remanding Robb to the custody of the sheriff, he prosecuted this writ of error. Mr. H. G. Sieberst and Mr. Alfred Clarke, for plaintiff in error. Mr. A. C. Searle and Mr. E. C. Marshal, Attorney-General of California, for defendant in error. MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the court. He stated the facts in the foregoing language, and continued: For the purpose of giving effect to the second section of article four of the Constitution of the United States, declaring that "a person charged in any State with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice and be found in another State, shall on the demand of the executive authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up to be removed to the State having jurisdiction of the crime," Congress passed the act of February 12th, 1793, in relation to fugitives from justice. 1 Stat. 302. The provisions of its first and second sections have been re-enacted in sections 5278 and 5279 of the Revised Statutes, which are as follows: "SEC. 5278. Whenever the executive authority of any State or Territory demands any person as a fugitive from justice, of the executive authority of any State or Territory to which such person has fled, and produces a copy of an indictment found or an affidavit made before a 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 be arrested and secured, and 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 fugi Opinion of the Court. tive, and to cause the fugitive to be delivered to such agent when he shall appear. If no such agent appear, 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. . "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.” The penal code of California, in conformity with the constitution of that State, provides, in reference to the Superior Court of the City and County of San Francisco, that "said court and their judges, or any of them, shall have power to issue writs of mandamus, certiorari, prohibition, quo warranto, and habeas corpus, on petition by or on behalf of any person in actual custody in their respective counties.” The authority and duty of the judge of that court to issue a writ of habeas corpus upon Bayley's application is not disputed in argument. But the contention of the plaintiff in error is, that in receiving and holding Bayley for the purpose of transporting him to Oregon he was, and is, acting under the authority and executing the power of the United States; and, therefore, that neither the Superior Court of San Francisco, nor one of its judges, could legally compel him to produce the prisoner, or commit him, as for contempt, for refusing to do so. If that court was without jurisdiction, by reason of the paramount authority of the Constitution and laws of the United States, to compel the plaintiff in error, in response to the writ of habeas corpus, to produce the prisoner, then his committal for contempt was the denial of a right, privilege, and immunity secured by the supreme law of the land. The claim by the plaintiff in error that there was such a denial constitutes the foundation of our jurisdiction. It is contended that the principles announced in Ableman v. Booth, and United States v. Booth, 21 How. 506, and in Tarble's C Opinion of the Court. Case, 13 Wall., 397, sustain the refusal of the plaintiff in error to produce the prisoner. The soundness of this position will be the subject of our first inquiry. In Ableman v. Booth, the general question was as to the authority of a justice of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin, upon a writ of habeas corpus, to compel the marshal of the United States to produce the body of one, committed to his custody by an order of a commissioner of a circuit court of the United States, for failing to give bail for his appearance in the district court of the United States for that State, to answer a charge of having violated the provisions of the fugitive slave act of September 18th, 1850. In other words, a judge of the supreme court of the State claimed and exercised the right to supervise and annul the proceedings of that commissioner, and to discharge a prisoner committed by him for an offence against the laws of the general government. In United States v. Booth, the question was as to the authority of a justice of the supreme court of the same State, upon a writ of habeas corpus, to discharge one in custody, under a judgment of the district court of the United States, in which he had been indicted for an offence against the laws of the United States, and by which he had been sentenced to be imprisoned for one month, to pay a fine of $1,000 and costs of prosecution, and to remain in custody until the sentence was complied with. The authority claimed by the justice who issued the writ and discharged the prisoner was affirmed by the supreme court of the State, and hence, as was said, the State court claimed and exercised jurisdiction over the proceedings and judgment of a district court of the United States, and, upon a summary and collateral proceeding, by habeas corpus, set aside and annulled its judgment, and discharged a prisoner who had been tried and found guilty of an offence against the laws of the United States, and sentenced to imprisonment by the district court. 21 How. 513, 514. It was held that no such paramount power existed in any State, or her tribunals, since its existence was inconsistent with the supremacy of the general government, as defined and limited by the Constitution of the United States and the laws made in pursuance thereof, and could not be recognized with |