28
the Governor, and that his agency had not been formally revoked;
but agent for what purpose To go into the State of West Virginia
and capture and carry away its citizens with a strong hand and with-
out warrant  By no means. His agency extended to one single object
and no more; and that wa-s, to receive such of the persons named in
the Governor's requisition as might be arrested and delivered to him in
pursuance of a warrant to be issued by the Governor of West Virginia,
bring them to Kentucky, and deliver them to the proper authorities.
Beyond that he could not go by virtue of his agency. When he went
a hair's breadth outside of the expressed terms of his agency be was
acting without authority from Kentucky, and his act, whether right or
wronig, was his own, and in no sense the act of the State. Suppose he
did say to Varney, when he arrested him, that he was State agent, and
had authority from the Governor of West Virginia, can the State of
Kentucky, upon any principle of law or common sense, be held any
more responsible for his false statement than for his wrongful act  One
was as much without authority as the other. The State did not act
until its process was served upon the prisoners by its (luly authorized
officers within its own territory.
   Nor is it material whether that process was served upon them the
moment their feet touched the west bank of Tug Fork, or whether it
was done days afterwards and miles in the interior.  Whatever the
nature of their previous holding might have been, whether an unjus-
tifiable trespass, or a lawful arrest for the crime of murder, under the
common law or the statutes of the State, it can not be denied that
when Kentucky did act she acted through due process, which has been
exhibited to the Court here, executed by her own regularly constituted
authorities, within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court having cog
nizance of the crimes alleged against the prisoners. At that moment
the act of the captors terminated, and the rightful authority of the
Commonwealth was asserted in regular form.
   Fortunately, however, so far as the case at bar is concerned, the
question is answered fully and authoritatively by the Supreme Court
in the case of Ker. The point was brought directly under official
cognizance in that case, and this is the answer the Court made in the
cogent and perspicuous language of Mr. Justice Miller:
   " It is contended in several places in the brief that the proceedings
in the arrest in Peru and the extradition and delivery to the authori-
ties of Cook county were not due process of law, and we suppose,
although it is not so alleged, that this reference is to that clause of