26
    But if a State is vested by the Constitution and laws of the United
 States with the right to demand the rendition of a fugitive from its
 justice, and it is made the duty of the State upon which the demand is
 made to deliver him up, it must necessarily be because it has a riqti to
 the jurisdiction of his person in order that he may be tried and pun-
 ished for his crime, if convicted, according to law, and if a State has
 a right to such jurisdiction and has once obtained it without wrong in
 itself, upon what principle of correct ethics, or under what provision
 of the Constitution or laws of the United States can that right be taken
 away from it Again, if it is true, as is held by all the authorities I
 have quoted, that a fugitive criminal can acquire no right superior to,
 or in contravention of, the right of jurisdietion in the State from
 which he fled, by the mere fact of his residence in a toreign countrV,
 what wrong has been done him to be redressed by this Court in this sum-
 mary proceeding'  If, as Chief-Justice Gibson said ill the Dow case,
 the provisions in our Constitution and laws in relation to extradition
 were not devised for the benefit of the fugitive, what right have these
 prisoners to complain that those provisions have not been resorted and
 conformed to in their arrest' What possible difference can it make to
 one legally liable to arrest, how, or by whom, or where such arrest
 may be made
   The Supreme Court concludes its opinion by asserting the princi-
ple that as the only violation of the sovereignty of Peru in the forcible
kidnaping of Ker was by the person who kidnaped him, the remedy
of the government of that country for the wrong done lies in the en-
forcement of its own laws and in its own courts against the kidnaper,
who might be extradited under the treaty for that purpose, and so in
this case the offended sovereignty of West Virginia may be amply
appeased by the punishment under her own criminal code of those
who were guilty of the wrong, which may readily be accomplished
under our simple and convenient method of interstate extradition.
   There is but one other provision in the Constitution, that I know
of, which furnishes any shadow of claim that this Court has jurisdic-
tion in the present proceeding, and that is the second sentence in the
first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which provides that
    "No State shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property
without due process of law," and at this point I will endeavor, if the
Court please, to answer the question suggested by your Honor before
the recess.