In the absence of the constitutional provision, the state of would stand on this subject in the same relation to the state of , that Spain does to . In this particular, the states are independent of each other. A criminal, fugitive from the one state to the other, could not be claimed as of right to be given up. It is most true, as mentioned by writers on the laws of nations, that every state is responsible to its neighbors for the conduct of its citizens, so far as their conduct violates the principles of good neighborhood. So it is among private individuals.— But for this, the inviolability of territory, or private dwelling, could not be maintained. This obligation creates the right, and makes it the duty of the state to impose such restraints upon the citizen, as the occasion demands. It was in the performance of this duty, that the passed laws to restrain citizens of the from setting on foot and fitting out military expeditions against their neighbors. While the violators of this law kept themselves within the , their conduct was cognizable in the courts of the , and not of the offended state, even if the means provided had assisted in the invasion of the foreign state. A demand by the injured state upon the for the offenders, whose operations were in their own country, would be answered, that the ’ laws alone could act upon them, and that, as a good neighbor, it would punish them.

It is the duty of the state of to make it criminal in one of its citizens to aid, abet, counsel, or advise, any person to commit a crime in her sister state. Any one violating the law would be amenable to the laws of , executed by its own tribunals. Those of could [p. 134]