tives would or should be surrendered. But it is settled by the decisions 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 offence against its laws, from trial and punishment, even though brought from another State by unlawful violence, or by abuse of legal process. Ker v. Illinois, 119 U. S. 436, 444; Mahon v. Justice, 127 U. S. 700, 707, 708, 712; Cook v. Hart, 146 U. S. 183, 190, 192.

In the case of Mahon v. Justice, 127 U. S. 700, a fugitive from the justice of Kentucky was kidnapped in West Virginia and forcibly carried back to Kentucky, where he was held for trial on a criminal charge. The governor of West Virginia demanded his restoration to the jurisdiction of that State, which, being refused, his release was sought by habeas corpus, and it was there contended that, under the Constitution and laws of the United States, the fugitive had a right of asylum in the State to which he fled, which the courts of the United States should recognize and enforce, except when removed in accordance with regular proceedings authorized by law. Instead of acceding to this proposition, this court said: "But the plain answer to this contention is that the laws of the United States do not recognize any such right of asylum as is here claimed, on the part of the fugitive from justice in any State to which he has fled; nor have they, as already stated, made any provision for the return of parties, who, by violence and without lawful authority, have been abducted from a State." And the court further said: "As to the removal from the State of the fugitive from justice in a way other than that which is provided by the second section of the fourth article of the Constitution, which declares 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 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,' and the laws passed by Congress to carry the same into effect -it is not perceived how that fact can affect his detention upon a warrant for the commission of a crime within the State to which he is carried. The jurisdiction of the court in which the indictment is found is not impaired by the manner in which the accused is brought before it. There are many adjudications to this purport cited by counsel on the argument, to some of which we will refer." (pp. 707, 708.) After reviewing a number of cases on this question, the court proceeded: "Other cases might be cited from the same courts holding similar views. There is, indeed, an entire concurrence of opinion as to the ground upon which a release of the appellant in the present case is asked, namely, that his forcible abduction from another State, and conveyance within the jurisdiction of the court holding him, is no objection to the detention and trial

for the offence charged. They all proceed upon the obvious ground that the offender against the law of the State is not relieved from liability because of personal injuries received from private parties, or because of indignities committed against another State. It would indeed be a strange conclusion, if a party charged with a criminal offence could be excused from answering to the government whose laws he had violated, because other parties had done violence to him, and also committed an offence against the laws of another State." (p. 712.) The same principle was applied in the case of Ker v. Illinois, 119 U. S. 436.

If a fugitive may be kidnapped or unlawfully abducted from the State or country of refuge, and be, thereafter, tried in the State to which he is forcibly carried, without violating any right or immunity secured to him by the Constitution and laws of the United States, it is difficult to understand upon what sound principle can be rested the denial of a State's authority or jurisdiction to try him for another or different offence than that for which he was surrendered. If the fugitive be regarded as not lawfully within the limits of the State in respect to any other crime than the one on which his surrender was effected, still that fact does not defeat the jurisdiction of its courts to try him for other offences, any more than if he had been brought within such jurisdiction forcibly and without any legal process whatever.

We are not called upon in the present case to consider what, if any, authority the surrendering State has over the subject of the fugitive's rendition, beyond ascertaining that he is charged with crime in the State from which he has fled, nor whether the States have any jurisdiction to legislate upon the subject, and we express no opinion on these questions. To apply the rule of international or foreign extradition, as announced in United States v. Rauscher, 119 U. S. 407, to interstate rendition involves the confusion of two essentially different things, which rest upon entirely different principles. In the former the extradition depends upon treaty contract or stipulation, which rests upon good faith, and in respect to which the sovereign upon whom the demand is made can exercise discretion, as well as investigate the charge on which the surrender is demanded, there being no rule of comity under and by virtue of which independent nations are required or expected to withhold from fugitives within their jurisdiction the right of asylum. In the matter of interstate rendition, however, there is the binding force and obligation, not of contract, but of the supreme law of the land, which imposes no conditions or limitations upon the jurisdiction and authority of the State to which the fugitive is returned.

There are decisions in the State courts and in some of the lower Federal courts which have applied the rule laid down in United States v. Rauscher, supra, to interstate rendition of fugitives under the Constitution and laws of the United States, but in our opinion

they do not rest upon sound principle, and are not supported by the weight of judicial authority.

The cases holding the other and sounder view, that a fugitive from justice surrendered by one State upon the demand of another is not protected from prosecution for offences other than that for which he was rendered up, but may, after being restored to the demanding State, be lawfully tried and punished for any and all crimes committed within its territorial jurisdiction, either before or after extradition, are the following: In re Noyes, 17 Albany L. J. 407; Ham v. The State [Texas], 4 Tex. App. 645; State ex rel. Brown v. Stewart, 60 Wis. 587; Post v. Cross, 135 N. Y. 536; Commonwealth v. Wright [Sup. Court of Mass. ], 33 N. E. Rep. 82; and In re Miles, 52 Vt. 609.

These authorities are followed by the Supreme Court of Georgia in the clear opinion pronounced by Lumpkin, Justice, in the present

case.

The highest courts of the two States immediately or more directly interested in the case under consideration hold the same rule on this subject. The plaintiff in error does not bear in his person the alleged sovereignty of the State of New York, from which he was remanded (Dow's Case, 18 Penn. St. 37); but if he did, that State properly recognizes the jurisdiction of the State of Georgia to try and punish him for any and all crimes committed within its territory. But aside from this, it would be a useless and idle procedure to require the State having custody of the alleged criminal to return him to the State by which he was rendered up in order to go through the formality of again demanding his extradition for the new or additional offences on which it desired to prosecute him. The Constitution and laws of the United States impose no such condition or requirement upon the State. Our conclusion is that, upon a fugitive's surrender to the State demanding his return in pursuance of national law, he may be tried in the State to which he is returned for any other offence than that specified in the requisition for his rendition, and that in so trying him against his objection no right, privilege, or immunity secured to him by the Constitution and laws of the United States is thereby denied.

It follows, therefore, that the judgment in the present case should be

Affirmed.

CHAPTER XI.

THE GUARANTY OF REPUBLICAN GOVERNMENT TO THE STATES.

LUTHER v. BORDEN.

7 Howard, 1; 17 Curtis, 1. 1848.

[See supra, p. 595.]

TEXAS v. WHITE.

7 Wallace, 700. 1868.

[See supra, p. 838.]

CHAPTER XII.

THE AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION.

[See in general the cases under Chapter I.]

CHAPTER XIII.

CIVIL RIGHTS AND THEIR GUARANTIES.

SECTION I. RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.

PFEIFFER v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CITY OF DETROIT.

Michigan, ; 77 Northwestern Reporter, 250. 1898.

MONTGOMERY, J. The relator applied to the Circuit Court of Wayne County to compel the respondent to discontinue the use of a certain book, known as "Readings from the Bible," in the public schools of Detroit.

[The application for a writ of mandamus having been granted by the lower court, the respondent brings the case to this court by certiorari. The answer of respondent in the lower court shows that the teachers in the schools in question were not required to give instruction from the Bible, except such as was absolutely necessary for use of the same as a supplemental text-book of reading, and were not allowed to make note or comment upon anything contained in said book. It was also averred that the board did not require the pupils of such schools to listen to the readings from the Bible, but that such readings took place at the close of the sessions of said schools, and that pupils were, by the order of the board, excused therefrom upon the application of their parents or guardians.]

The contention of relator is that the action of the board is forbidden by the constitution of the State. The provisions touching this question are as follows (article 4):

"Sect. 39. The legislature shall pass no law to prevent any person from worshipping Almighty God according to the dictates of his own conscience, or compel any person to attend, erect, or support any place of religious worship, or to pay tithes, taxes, or other rates for the support of any minister of the gospel or teacher of religion. "Sect. 40. No money shall be appropriated or drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious sect or society, theological.