
    Ex parte Frank A. Ammons.
    The act of 1875 (75 Ohio L. 79), relating to fugitives from justice, is a valid enactment, in so far as it is in aid of the provisions of the constitution of the United States and the act of congress oil that subject.
    Application for a writ of habeas corpus.
    
    
      Hildebrant $ Bruner, for petitioner.
    
      IL. M. Moos and J. M. Pattison, contra.
    It is shown on behalf of the applicant that he is restrained of his liberty by the sheriff of Clinton county, in the jail of the county, by virtue of an order made by Hon. A. W. Doane, a judge of the court of common pleas in and for that county, on an examination had before him under the act of March 2-3, 1875 (72 Ohio L. 79), “ to regulate the practice of the delivery of fugitives from justice when demanded by another state or territory,” set forth at large, ante, 65.
    The petition of the applicant states that the order of commitment was made “ on proceedings had before said judge on a warrant issued by the Governor of Ohio, on a requisition of the Governor of North Carolina,” for the return of said Ammons, an alleged fugitive from justice. The substance of the order is stated to be “ that the said Ammons be committed to the jail of said county of Clinton for the space of twenty days, from the 21st of Eebruary, 1877, to await the order of the Governor of North Carolina for the extradition of said alleged fugitive.”
    There is no complaint that the demand for Ammons by the executive authority of North Carolina was not made, or that the warrant under which he was arrested was not issued by the Governor of Ohio, in due conformity to the provisions of the act of congress in respect to fugitives from justice, approved February 12,1798 (1 Stats, at Large, 302), re-enacted in 1873 (U. S. Rev. Stats., § 5278).
   By the Court.

The petitioner claims that his imprisonment is unlawful, for the reason, as he alleges, that the act of 1875, under which the order of commitment was made, is void.

The extradition of fugitives from justice, as between the states of the Union, as provided in section 2, article 4, of the constitution of the United States, is subject to the control of the congress of the United States; and congress having legislated on the subject, it is contended that the state legislature is without power in the premises.

’Admitting that it is not within the power of the state legislature to make provisions in conflict with the laws of congress on the subject, it is quite clear that state legislation in aid of congressional enactments is not objectionable:

The act of congress approved February 12, 1793, re-enacted in 1873 (U. S. Rev. Stats., § 5278), provides that, in certain cases, the executive authority of a state, to which a person charged with the commission of crime in another state shall have fled, shall cause such fugitive “ to be arrested and secured,” and cause such fugitive to be delivered to the agent of the executive authority of the state demanding his extradition.

The means by which the fugitive is “ to be arrested and secured” are not provided by the act of congress; hence the legislature of a state may and should provide proper and adequate means and facilities for the accomplishment of such extradition.

The act of our general assembly of March 23,1875, in so far as its operation is complained of in this case, is not in conflict with the constitution of the United States, or of the laws of congress.

The writ will therefore be refused.  