from the person of Hansen on the thirtieth day of September, 1905-no particular hour of that day being mentioned-while the affidavits import nothing more than that McNichols was at Chicago at one o'clock and during the whole of the afternoon of that day. The affidavits give no account of the whereabouts of McNichols during the forenoon of the day specified in the papers accompanying the requisition by the Governor of Wisconsin. We know, because everyone knows without the testimony of witnesses, that Kenosha, the place of the alleged crime, is only a short distance-within not more than one hour and a half's travel, by rail-from Chicago. It was entirely possible for the accused to have passed the whole or a larger part of the forenoon of September 30, in that city, and yet have been in Chicago at one o'clock and during the whole afternoon of the same day. So that the affidavits relied on by no means prove the absence of the accused from Wisconsin during the whole of the thirtieth day of September.

Here, it is suggested, that the crime, if committed at all, was committed at two o'clock of September 30, while the affidavits show that McNichols was at Chicago at one o'clock and during the entire afternoon of that day. So far as the record discloses this suggestion finds no support in anything said or done at the hearing by those who opposed the discharge of the accused. The requisition papers do not state that the alleged crime was committed at two o'clock or at any other specified hour of the day named. The whole foundation for the suggestion was an allegation in the petition for the writ, in this case, to the effect that the accused had heard Thomas Hansen testify in another habeas corpus proceeding that the crime was committed at two o'clock on the day named. But the record does not show that Hansen or any other person so testified in the present case. Indeed, it does not appear that anyone testified orally before the court-not even McNichols. Upon the record before us it must be taken that McNichols was charged with committing the crime in question on the thirtieth day of September, and that he could have been at

Kenosha during the forenoon of that day, although he may have been, as stated in the affidavits, in Chicago during the whole of the afternoon of the same day. So that the accused entirely failed to overcome the prima facie case made by the official documents before the court of his having become a fugitive from the justice of Wisconsin, after committing a crime against its laws on the thirtieth day of September, 1905. When a person is held in custody as a fugitive from justice under an extradition warrant, in proper form, and showing upon its face all that is required by law to be shown as a prerequisite to its being issued, he should not be discharged from custody unless it is made clearly and satisfactorily to appear that he is not a fugitive from justice within the meaning of the Constitution and laws of the United States. We may repeat the thought expressed in Appleyard's case, above cited, that a faithful, vigorous enforcement of the constitutional and stattory provisions relating to fugitives from justice is vital to the harmony and welfare of the States, and that “while a State should take care, within the limits of the law, that the rights of its people are protected against illegal action, the judicial authorities of the Union should equally take care that the provisions of the Constitution be not so narrowly interpreted as to enable offenders against the laws of a State to find a permanent asylum in the territory of another State."

No error appearing in the record, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Illinois must be affirmed.

It is so ordered.

207 U.S.

Opinion of the Court.

KENT v. PEOPLE OF PORTO RICO.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF PORTO RICO.

No. 31. Argued October 30, 31, 1907.-Decided November 18, 1907.

Amado v. United States, 195 U. S. 172, followed as to when this court cannot review the final judgment of the Supreme Court of Porto Rico in a criminal

case.

Where the jurisdiction of this court to review a judgment of the Supreme Court of a Territory depends on the presence of a Federal question the mere assertion of a Federal right indubitably frivolous and without color of merit is not sufficient to confer jurisdiction, nor in such a case has this court jurisdiction to pass upon other questions non-Federal in nature, and the judgment will not be affirmed but the writ of error dismissed. While the contention that a local law of Porto Rico passed in 1904, changing the boundaries of the judicial districts, was void because in conflict with § 33 of the act of April 12, 1900, so that no district courts have existed since that time, presents a formal Federal question, it is frivolous and without color of merit and therefore insufficient to confer jurisdiction on this court to review a judgment of the Supreme Court of Porto Rico under §35 of that act.

Where, at the request of the accused, the question of the voluntary nature of a written confession has been submitted to the jury no constitutional right under the Fifth Amendment has been asserted and denied and errors assigned on that subject do not present any Federal question or furnish any basis for the jurisdiction of this court.

THE facts are stated in the opinion.

Mr. N. B. K. Pettingill, with whom Mr. Nemesio Perez Moris and Mr. Harry P. Leake were on the brief, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Frank Feuille, Attorney General of Porto Rico, for defendant in error, submitted.

MR. JUSTICE WHITE delivered the opinion of the court.

Whether the Supreme Court of Porto Rico erred in affirming the conviction and sentence of the plaintiff in error of a crime held to constitute embezzlement, is the question presented by this record. Twenty-seven errors are assigned. At the threshVOL. COVII-8

old we are concerned with our right to consider them. Our jurisdiction arises from the thirty-fifth section of the act of April 12, 1900 (31 Stat. 77, 85, chap. 191). For the purposes of this case it suffices to say that by the section in question our power to review extends, first, to "the same cases as from the Territories of the United States;" and, second, to "all cases where the Constitution of the United States, or a treaty thereof, or an act of Congress is brought in question and the right claimed thereunder is denied. . ." As we have no authority to review the action of the Supreme Court of a Territory of the United States in a criminal case like this (Amado v. United States, 195 U. S. 172, 175), the first of the above clauses may be put out of view. A few only of the errors assigned are relied upon at bar as presenting Federal questions within the scope of the second clause, yet it is urged that all the assigned errors are open. This rests upon the proposition that in a case coming from Porto Rico, where jurisdiction arises from the presence of a Federal question, the duty devolves of passing upon all the errors relied upon, irrespective of their Federal character. Passing for the moment a consideration of the deduction involved in the proposition, we come to consider the premise, that is, the alleged existence of Federal contentions embraced by the second clause of section 35. We do this because, if it be that there are no such questions, it will become unnecessary further to notice the argument. In determining whether the assignments of error present Federal questions it is to be borne in mind that the mere fact that some of the assignments relied on assert Federal rights is not determinative, since, even although the assignments formally involve such rights, we are nevertheless without jurisdiction "where it indubitably appears that the Federal right asserted is frivolous, that is, without color of merit." American Railroad Co. v. Castro, 204 U. S. 453.

The first error assigned alleged to embody a Federal right is that the trial below was absolutely void because the District Court in which the information was filed and trial had was not

a legal tribunal within the intendment of the act of Congress of April 12, 1900, the organic act of Porto Rico. To test the merit of the contention it is necessary to briefly state the organization of the judicial system of Porto Rico under the American domination and the legislation of Congress relating to the same. By an order promulgated during the control of Porto Rico by the military authorities the judicial system was made to consist, generally speaking, of District Courts composed of three judges, and of a Supreme Court. By section 33 of the act of Congress above referred to it was, in part, provided (31 Stat. 84):

"That the judicial power shall be vested in the courts and tribunals of Porto Rico as already established and now in operation, including municipal courts, under and by virtue of General Orders, numbered one hundred and eighteen, as promulgated by Brigadier-General Davis, United States Volunteers, August sixteenth, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, and including also the police courts established by General Orders numbered one hundred and ninety-five, promulgated November twenty-ninth, eighteen hundred and ninety-nine, by Brigadier General Davis, United States Volunteers, and the laws and ordinances of Porto Rico and the municipalities thereof in force, so far as the same are not in conflict herewith, all which courts and tribunals are hereby continued."

In Marcn, 1904, a law was enacted by the legislature of Porto Rico, modifying the judicial system as established by the military orders referred to in the act of Congress. For the purposes of the contention now under consideration it suffices to say that by this local law the boundaries of the judicial districts were changed, caused by the creation of additional districts, and it was provided that such courts, instead of being composed of three, should consist of one judge in each district. The argument is that this local law, in so far as it changed the District Courts, and especially in so far as it provided for one instead of three judges to preside over each court, was void, because in conflict with the provision of the thirty-third section of the