10
 er and having him delivered up to be punished for a violation of its
 laws.
    Of course, when a State formally asserts its right to reclaim a fui-
 gitive from its justice under this provision of the Constitution, it must
 do so precisely in the manner prescribed by law, or the proceedings
 will be void.  As if a judge of a court should make the demand,
 insteadi of the Chief Executive authority, or the demand should be
 made by a Governor without producing a copy of an indictment
 found, or affidavit made, charging the person demanded with the com-
 mission of treason, felony or other crime, or should fail to certify the
 copy produced to be authentic; a failure to comply with the law in
 any of these particulars would render the whole proceeding nugatory
 if its validity should be tested on habeas corpus, either in the State
 where the arrest was made, or in any other through which the fugitive
 might be carried en route to the State having jurisdiction of his
 crime. And that for the obvious reason, that a warrant issued by a
 Governor under such circumstances would be void for want of legal
 authority in him to act.  But once in the jurisdiction of the State
 against whose laws he has offended, no more illegality or irregularity
 in the manner in which he was brought there can be held as all
 available excuse against his being held for trial.
    This is precisely the doctrine held in the case of Joe Smith, the
Mormon prophet, in 3 McLane, cited by the learned counsel, as well
as by the Supreme Court in the Ker case, to which I will presently
refer. As your Honor well remembers, no doubt, the points and
the only points determined in the Smith case were, that as the
case arose under the Constitution and laws of the United States, the
District Court of the United States for the district of Illinois had ju-
risdiction to issue the writ of habeas corpus, notwithstanding the offi-
cers concerned in the attempted extradition of Smith in pursuance of
-hose laws were State officers; and that, inasmuch as the affidavit
-,which accompanied the requisition issued by the Governor of Missouri
showed upon its face that no crime had been committed by the accused
in that State, the warrant issued thereon by the Governor of Illinois
was without authority and consequently void. And so in Ker's case,
as we shall presently see. The Supreme Court held that, while an
irregularity in the extradition proceedings between the Governors of
California and Illinois might have been available on habeas corpus to
test their validity in California, or in any State through which he was