court competent under the constitution and laws of Virginia to determine the questions raised by the complaint against the club. This must be assumed to be the case after the highest court of Virginia refused a writ of error upon the ground that the judgment of the corporation court was plainly right. The mode of proceeding against the club was not unusual in such cases. As early as Terrett v. Taylor, 9 Cranch, 43, 51, this court said: "A private corporation created by the legislature may lose its franchises by a misuser or nonuser of them; and they may be resumed by the government under a judicial judgment upon quo warranto to ascertain and enforce the forfeiture." So in New Orleans Waterworks v. Louisiana, above cited, the first of several questions raised there was that since the charter of a certain waterworks company prescribed mandamus as the remedy to maintain a lawful tariff of water rates, was not the substitution by the writs of forfeiture of charter, as a remedy. for the maintenance of unlawful rates, a breach of the contract, and a deprivation of the property without due process of law, and a denial of the equal protection of the laws? The court answered the question by saying (p. 351): "The answer to the first question, as to mandamus being the exclusive remedy for illegal rates, is that the state court has otherwise construed the charter, and has held that mandamus is not the only remedy, but that the company was liable to be proceeded against by quo warranto at the suit of the State through its attorney general. The claim that by so proceeding there is any impairment of the obligation of a contract by any subsequent legislation, or that there has thus been a deprivation of property without due process of law, or a denial of the equal protection of the laws, has no colorable foundation. An examination of this question, among others, was made by the state court after full hearing by all parties, and all that can possibly be claimed on the part of the plaintiff in error is that such court erroneously decided the law. That constitutes no Federal question."

It thus appears that the club ceased to exist as a corpoVOL. COVIII-25

Argument for Plaintiff in Error.

208 U.S.

ration by virtue of a judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction, all the parties being before it and given full opportunity to be heard. Such a judgment cannot be held to have violated any right belonging to the club under the contract or other clause of the Federal Constitution. Foster v. Kansas, 112 U. S. 201, 206; Kennard v. Louisiana, 92 U. S. 480; Louisiana Waterworks Co. v. Louisiana, above cited.

Judgment affirmed.

BASSING v. CADY.

ERROR TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND.

No. 426. Argued January 8, 1908.-Decided February 24, 1908.

On appeal or writ of error to this court, papers or documents used in the court below cannot in strictness be examined here unless by bill of exceptions or other proper mode they are made part of the record. The mere arraignment and pleading to an indictment does not put the accused in judicial jeopardy, nor does the second surrender of the same person by one State to another amount to putting that person in second jeopardy because the requisition of the demanding State is based on an indictment for the same offense for which the accused had been formerly indicted and surrendered but for which he had never been tried. One charged with crime and who was in the place where, and at the time when, the crime was committed, and who thereafter leaves the State, no matter for what reason, is a fugitive from justice within the meaning of the interstate rendition provisions of the Constitution, and of § 5278, Rev. Stat., and this none the less if he leaves the State with the knowledge and without the objection of its authorities.

THE facts are stated in the opinion.

Mr. Edward D. Bassett for plaintiff in error:

The plaintiff in error is not a fugitive from justice within the meaning of Art. IV, § 2, Const. of the U. S. and § 5278, Rev. Stat. Dennison v. Kentucky, 24 How. 66; Robb v. Connolly,

208 U. S.

Argument for Plaintiff in Error.

111 U. S. 624; Ex parte Reggel, 114 U. S. 642; Roberts v. Reilly, 116 U. S. 80; Streep v. United States, 160 U. S. 128; Hyatt v. New York, 188 U. S. 691; Munsey v. Clough, 196 U. S. 364; Pettibone v. Nichols, 203 U. S. 192; Appleyard v. Massachusetts, 203 U. S. 222; Illinois v. Pease, 207 U. S. 100.

The plaintiff in error is not a fugitive from justice as this court has defined the term in the foregoing decisions.

He has afforded an opportunity to the State of New York to prosecute him for his alleged offense, being returned on former extradition proceedings, and has been within the jurisdiction of that State several times since the commission of his alleged offense was known. In re Kingsbury, 106 Massachusetts, 223, 227.

He has complied with the purpose and spirit of the Constitution and statute, and his continued residence in Rhode Island should be protected from action on the part of the State of New York branding him as a fugitive from justice. Appleyard v. Massachusetts, supra; Illinois v. Pease, supra.

If a person can be extradited twice for the same offense, he can also be extradited a hundred times for the same alleged offense. Each time he is put to great expense, humiliation, and deprived of his liberty, and certainly the provisions of the constitution and statute referred to in this case do not contemplate that a citizen of another State shall be harrassed and persecuted by successive extradition proceedings after he has been returned to the demanding State on the first request to answer the charges made against him.

His delivery to the State of New York on the first extradition warrant gave the demanding State rightful possession of his person, and it could lawfully subject him to criminal process for the offense charged. Streep v. United States, 160 U. S. 128; Bruce v. Rayner, 62 C. C. A. 501, 504.

And the State of New York could then have prosecuted him for that or any other offense it had against him, or acted toward him as it saw fit. Lascelles v. Georgia, 148 U. S. 537.

The State of New York, however, saw fit to discharge the

plaintiff in error, and thereby he ceased to be a fugitive from its justice for that particular offense.

Leaving the State of New York with express assent and knowledge of its authorities negatives the fact that he is a fugitive from justice. In re Todd (S. Dak., 1900), 81 N. W. Rep. 637; Senator Patterson's case, cited in Moore on Extradition, § 569.

Mr. J. Jerome Hahn for defendant in error:

The law is clearly to the effect that the number of extraditions which may be issued is in the discretion of the executive, the sole requirement for interstate extradition being simply that having committed a crime within a State the person whose surrender is sought has left the jurisdiction of the demanding State and is found within the territory of another State when it is sought to subject him to criminal process. Roberts v. Reilly, 116 U.S. 80; Appleyard v. Massachusetts, 203 U. S. 222; Illinois v. Pease, 207 U. S. 100; 2 Moore on Extradition, 933; In re White, 45 Fed. Rep. 239.

As to the third assignment of error, it raises no Federal question; the question was not raised in the petition for the writ of habeas corpus, or at the hearing thereon before the Governor of Rhode Island, or the Superior Court and is without merit in fact. The requisition for extradition states that because Bassing was a fugitive from justice, the Governor of New York requested his extradition, which fact was necessarily proven to the Governor of Rhode Island and found by him to be a fact before he issued the warrant, which under no procedure known to counsel, need contain further findings of fact than are therein set forth. The issuing of the warrant is in effect a finding that the authorities of the demanding State have proven the facts set forth in the requisition, and it is in the usual form.

MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the court.

There was some difference of opinion between counsel upon

the question whether certain papers, printed by the defendant, constituted any part of the record which this court could examine upon the present writ of error. While this is not an important matter in view of our conclusion as to the controlling questions in the case it is appropriate to say that, on appeal or writ of error to this court, papers or documents used at the hearing in the court below cannot in strictness be examined here unless they are made part of the record by bill of exceptions or in some other proper mode. For the purposes of our decision we take the case to be substantially as the plaintiff in error insists that it is on the record. He cannot ask more.

The Governor of Rhode Island, on the tenth day of July, 1907, issued a warrant of arrest addressed to the Sheriff of the County of Bristol, in that State, reciting that information had been communicated to him by the Governor of New York that Jacob Bassing (the present plaintiff in error) was charged with the crime of grand larceny, first degree, committed in New York, was a fugitive from the justice of the latter State, and was supposed to be then in Rhode Island; and that the Governor of New York had transmitted to him a copy of an indictment, warrant and other papers, certified by him to be authentic, charging Bassing with the above crime, and demanded his delivery to the agent of New York according to the Constitution and laws of the United States. The warrant of the Governor of Rhode Island commanded the arrest of Bassing and his delivery to the person designated by the Governor of New York to receive and convey him to the latter State to be there dealt with according to law.

Having been arrested under that warrant, and being in the custody of the Sheriff of Bristol County, Bassing sued out the present writ of habeas corpus from the Superior Court of Rhode Island. The material part of that petition is in these words: "Your petitioner further shows that he has been extradited at a prior time, to wit, March 12, 1907, on requisition of the Governor of the State of New York for the same offense as is alleged in the present indictment. Your petitioner