The reading of these affidavits was objected to by the of the state of , on the ground that it was not competent for Smith to impeach or contradict the return to the . It was contended by the counsel of the said Smith, 1st. That he had a right to prove that the return was untrue. 2d. That the said affidavits did not contradict the said return, as there was no averment under oath in said return that the said Smith was in at the time of the commission of the alleged crime, or had fled from the justice of that state. The court decided that the said affidavits should be read in evidence, subject to all objections; and they were read accordingly.

The cause was argued by and , for Smith, and by , attorney general of the state of , contra.

, counsel for Smith, made the following points:—

1. This court has jurisdiction.

The requisition purports on its face to be made, and the warrant to be issued, under the Constitution and laws of the , regulating the surrender of fugitives from justice.—2d sec. 4th article Const. U. S.—1st sec. of the act of Congress of 12th Feb. 1793.

When a person’s rights are invaded under a law of the , he has no remedy except in the courts of the —2d sec. 3d article Const. U. S. 12th Wend. 325. 16 Peters, 543.

The whole power in relation to the delivering up of fugi [p. 125]