To remit the fugitive in this case, would be to remit him in every case. For in the present state of things, it is next to impossible not to owe something. But I see neither injustice nor inconvenience in permitting the fugitive to be sued in our courts. The laws of some countries punishing the unfortunate debtor by perpetual imprisonment, he is right to liberate himself by flight, and it would be wrong to re-imprison him in the country to which he flies. Let all process, therefore, be confined to his property.
Murder, not amounting to treason, being the only case in which the fugitive is to be delivered;
On what evidence, and by whom, shall he be delivered? In this country let any justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, or other judge of the district where the fugitive is found, use the same proceedings as for a murder committed on the high seas, until the finding of the ‘true bill’ by the grand jury; but evidence on oath from the country demanding him, though in writing and ex parte, should have the same effect as if delivered orally at the examination.
A true bill being found by the grand jury, let the officer in whose custody the fugitive is, deliver him to the person charged to demand and receive him.
In the British provinces adjoining us, the same proceedings will do.
In the Spanish provinces, a proceeding adapted to the course of their laws should be agreed on.
March 22, 1792.