The border collisions in other countries have been seen to be a fruitful source of war and bloodshed, and most wisely did the constitution confer upon the national government the regulation of those matters, because of its exemption from the excited passions awakened by conflicts between neighboring states, and its ability alone to adopt a uniform {224} rule, and establish uniform laws among all the states in those cases. This case presents the important question arising under the Constitution and laws of the United States, whether a citizen of the state of Illinois can be transported from his own state to the state of Missouri, to be there tried for a crime, which, if he ever committed, was committed in the state of Illinois; whether he can be transported to Missouri, as a fugitive from justice, when he has never fled from that state. Joseph Smith is before the court on habeas corpus, directed to the sheriff of Sangamon county, state of Illinois. The return shows that he is in custody under a warrant from the executive of Illinois, professedly issued in pursuance of the Constitution and laws of the United States and of the state of Illinois, ordering said Smith to be delivered to the agent of the executive of Missouri, who had demanded him as a fugitive from justice, under the 2nd section, 4th article of the Constitution of the United States, and the act of Congress passed to carry into effect that article. The article is in these words, viz.:--"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." The act of Congress made to carry into effect this article directs that the demand be made on the executive of the state where the offender is found, and prescribes the proof to support the demand,--viz., indictment or affidavit. The court deemed it respectful to inform the governor and attorney-general of the state of Illinois of the action upon the habeas corpus. On the day appointed for the hearing, the attorney-general for the state of Illinois appeared and denied the jurisdiction of the court to grant the habeas corpus. 1st. Because the warrant was not issued under color or by authority of the United States, but by the state of Illinois. 2nd. Because no habeas corpus can issue in this case from either the Federal or State Courts to inquire into facts behind the writ.