*1 NEW YORK v. O’NEILL. Argued
No. 53. November March 1958. Decided Bowen, Reeves Attorney Florida, Assistant General of argued the him petitioner. cause brief With on the Ervin, Attorney Florida, were Richard W. General Frank Hogan. S.
L. argued J. Cushman the cause and filed a brief for respondent. C.
James and Louis A. Kohn a brief filed Dezendorf for the National Conference Commissioners on Uniform curiae, State Laws, as amicus support petitioner. Attorney Kansas, filed Jr., Anderson, General John support petitioner. curiae, amicus brief, *2 following Puerto Rico the Commonwealth States and by Patterson, joined Attor- John Alabama, this brief: Attorney by ney Bennett, Bruce Arkansas, General; Attorney by Brown, G. Edmund General; California, Attorney by Dunbar, Gen- Duke W. General; Colorado, Attorney by Bracken, ; General John J. ; Connecticut, eral by Eugene Attorney by Georgia, Cook, General; Idaho, by Gray Attorney Smith, General; Indiana, Edwin don W. by Attorney Erbe, Steers, A. Iowa, K. Norman General; Ferguson, Attorney by Kentucky, M. Attor- Jo General; by ney Gremillion, F.P. Attor- General; Louisiana, Jack Harding, Attorney ney by F. Maine, Frank General; Sybert, Attorney Maryland, by C. General; Ferdinand Attorney by Lord, General; Miles General; Minnesota, Mississippi,by Attorney Patterson, General; Mis- Joe T. by Attorney Dalton, General; Montana, John M. souri, by Attorney by Anderson, H. General; Nebraska, Forrest Attorney by Harvey Beck, Clarence S. General; Nevada, by Attorney Hampshire, Dickerson, General; New Louis Wyman, Attorney by Jersey, C. General; New D. David by Attorney Furman, General; M. Mexico, New Fred Standley, Attorney by General; York, New Louis J.Lef- Attorney by kowitz, General; Malcolm Carolina, North Attorney by Seawell, B. General; Dakota, North LeslieB. gum, Attorney by Bur Saxbe, General; Ohio, William Attorney by Q. General; Williamson, Mac Oklahoma, Attorney Oregon,by Thornton, General; Y. Robert Attor- ney by General; Commonwealth of Rico, Puerto Fran- Espinosa, Acting Attorney cisco Jr., General; Rhode by Nugent, Joseph Attorney Island, J. General; South Attorney Callison, T. Carolina, C. General; Tennessee, by George Attorney Texas,.by McCanless, F. General; Attorney Wilson, Will General; E. Utah, Richard- Attorney Callister, General; Vermont, Frederick M. Reed, Attorney General; Virginia, by Albertis S. Harri- son, Jr., Attorney General; Washington, by John J. O’Connell, Attorney General; Virginia, by West W. W. Barron, Attorney General; Wyoming, by Thomas 0. Miller, Attorney General.. opinion delivered the Justice Frankfurter
Mr. Court.
This case is
us
constitutionality
before
to determine the
of a Florida statute entitled
Law to Secure the
“Uniform
Attendance Witnesses from
a State
Within Without
Proceedings.”
Stat., 1957,
Criminal
Fla.
942.01-
§§
942.06.
a citizen of
Respondent,
Illinois, had traveled to
Florida
In
to attend
convention.
accordance with the
.
Florida
statute,
County,
Circuit Court of Dade
*3
Florida, responded
aby
judge
to.
certificate executed
of the Court of
Sessions,
County
General
New York
(under N. Y.
618-a), by summoning'
Code Crim. Proc. §
respondent before it to determine whether he was to be
given
custody
into the
of New York authorities
be
transported
testify
to New York
in a grand jury pro
to.
ceeding in that
Court, ruling
State. The Circuit
that the
Florida statute
the Florida and the
violated
United States
Constitutions,
refused to grant
request.
New York’s
9
Supp.
Fla.
153. The Supreme Court of Florida affirmed
ground
this decision on the
that
the statute violated the
United States Constitution.
In Commonwealth How. Taney, Obligation speaking Mr. Chief Justice upon the Constitution Ohio imposed Governor Kentucky one of violátion of the to deliver accused “to the Kentucky, laws called attention criminal necessity preserve of this policy provision obvious harmony between and order and law within their States, How., borders . . . .” at 103. samé respective adopted underlie the measure “policy necessity” forty-two jurisdictions. other Florida Unless there provision is some the United States Constitution which from clearly prevents accomplishing States this end by chosen, means this Court must sustain Uniform provision The absence Act. States United specifically granting power Constitution to the States interstate legislate respecting rendition of witnesses bar. presents argue declaratory no To from the incor- *5 § poration Art. of the ancient Constitution, IV, in the fugi- up policy among delivering political the Coloniesof right implied justice the to fashion from an denial of tives cooperative arrangements for the effective adminis- other rigid, justice, a of is to the tration reduce Constitution validity niggardly, adjudging In code. detailed and relationship effecting of a form between of statute new specific is not for constitutional States, the search according it. the statute Rather, authorization for constitutionality'which presumption of full of benefit postulate adjudication, must of constitutional wé incompatibility clear States Consti- find United range power and tution. The of state is not defined legislative subject-matter. by an of delimited enumeration purport imagination The Constitution did not to exhaust devising relation- resourcefulness fruitful interstate ships. variety It is not tó be limit the of construed to voluntary arrangements through possible which are cooperative with a view actions of individual States harmony increasing within federalism created being legisla- divisive, the Constitution. Far from this catalyst is a tion It is the unrestricted within cohesion. area of action the States the .Constitution. left Supreme The Court of Florida found that the statute Privileges in' violated the and Immunities Clauses found § IV, 2, Art. the Fourteenth Amendment. Privileges pro- § Clause Art.' IV, 2; and Immunities (cid:127) against scribes discrimination a State citizen of Slaughter-House Cases, another State. Wall. There no such discrimination here. The statute Florida applies persons boundaries, to all within the and therefore subject jurisdiction, finding to the of Florida. The Supreme ingress.and that the Florida Court egress privilege citizenship protected is a national by the Ametidment an issue Fourteenth raises n opinions more been stirred this Court. than once California, in Edwards v. concurring opinions
See *6 in Crandall v. and connection with 160, Nevada, scope if even broad be However, 6 Wall. no of there is violation given privilege, to such a undoubtedly statute. Florida privilege by the Florida if respondent Florida he had been have held within could proceeding in a criminal within that a material witness aof limi not have been less yet State. And this would and ingress egress of the of than tation on his claim in are testify New York. There is an order to attend and the claimed constitutional on the exercise of restrictions obligation from the right. One such restriction derives been sustained testimony. obligation This has to give across Atlantic Ocean. where it necessitated travel States, 421.* 284 U. S. Blackmer v. United case does not involve free- fundamentally, this (cid:127)More represents in sense. At most travel its essential it dom of travel. Partic-' voluntary interference with temporary jet transportation when so in an era of ularly this matter in a of hours. distances can be traversed vast free to return to Florida after perfectly Respondent Indeed, obligated New York was in York. testifying New he Or, testifying, Florida. after way his back to pay in or remain New York. could return to Illinois testify * Compulsion in sister to travel boundaries across State Mary of Constitution. See Laws States antedates the United States 1785, Chapter approve, and land, I, November An ACT confirm by appointed ratify, the'compact made the commissioners general assembly Virginia, the commis of of Commonwealth jurisdiction appointed state, regulate and settle the by this sioners rivers, part navigation and that of Patowmack and Pocomoke territory Virginia: “And bay Chesapeake which lieth withiri by this pursuance jurisdiction settled in of the all cases trial other, in the shall attend as.witnesses compact, citizens of either state magistrate having jurisdiction, upon any summons court or from county where such citizen being proper served officer shalLreside.”
privilege ingress egress among the States which urged in opinions been is of hardier stuff. The privilege prevent walling was to States, off of what has been called the Balkanization of the Nation. The requirement respondent resists conduces, it merits repetition, toward a free-willed collaboration of inde- pendent States.
The more relevant challenge to the statute invalidated Supreme Court of Florida is that it denies due process' of law violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. generous Because protections to be per- accorded a son brought or summoned before the court of the forward- ing State, procedural process due hearing itself this, must be firmly accorded and established. The Cir- *7 cuit of Dade County Court ruled that the any absence of provision for bail in the procedure of apprehension and delivery lavy. process violated due the Supreme Since Court of Florida expressly ruling refrained from whether the failure of the statute provide persons for bail for attached and delivered violated either the Florida Con- stitution or the Fourteenth Amendment, and since silence on bail is not tantamount to proscription the bail, claim that this silence of the statute is a violation of the Four- teenth Amendment is a hypothetical question which need not now be considered. mayWe add that the sole claim us, before as it was the sole claim dealt with that, Supreme Court of Florida, is the statute i&>uncon- stitutional on its face. No is claim before us that administration of the statute in particular circum- stances of this violates due process. case Supreme Court of Florida held that inasmuch as what was ordered to be carried on a foreign juris diction, the Florida courts could not constitutionally be given jurisdiction to order it (citing Pennoyer Neff, 714). S. However, U. the Florida courts had immediate personal jurisdiction respondent over by virtue of his Fourteenth Insofar within that State.
presence con- the Florida courts gave this concerned, Amendment though that an even act to order jurisdiction stitutional See Steele v. the State. outside of is to be performed act Co., Restatement, Conflict 280; S. 344 U. Bulova Watch of Laws, § 94. eleemosynary. Act is not of -this purpose
The primary for of the enact- function each self-protective It serves Legislature the Florida enacting this law By States. ing pro- employ Florida courts and enabled authorized obtaining of witnesses jurisdictions cedures other forty- Today Florida. proceedings criminal needed pro- criminal may facilitate and Puerto Rico two States unavailability by the ceedings, impeded otherwise machinery of this utilizing witnesses,-by material with-, witnesses from obtain such reciprocal legislation to altruistic, merely This not a their out boundaries. disinterested enactment. argument benefiting to an any event, yield
In aof State would beyond power other States is of bur disregard implications the inherent completely organic society framework our federalism within whose being abundant and lives and moves and its —the authority interrelationship national complicated between Loan Savings & States, Hopkins and the see Federal Cleary, Assn. v. S. between the States 296 U. *8 yield argument inter sese. To to this would foreclose arrangements to the all which increase virtually States ar- comity These among States. extra-constitutional “problems rangements are to solve created designed of powers constitutional division without disturbance Clark, Joint government.” the federal nature of our 51 Pol. Sci. Activity Officials, Between Federal and State Q. Reciprocal legislation,, 230, 269. such the Uniform Law to Secure Attendance of Witnesses from Within Proceedings State in and the Without a Criminal regis- in the reciprocal periods grace providing Acts see Kane v. New automobiles, tration of out-of-state arrangement. is one such The Jersey, n uniform laws by the National Conference proposed adopted by on Laws and Commissioners Uniform State benefits) other increased (among individual States have relationships by providing ease of interstate commercial uniformity through gov- in commercial laws uniform Acts erning sales and instruments. negotiable Uniform laws frequently have been concerned enforcement of criminal Thus, laws. Uniform Criminal Extradition Act, 9 L. A. rendition (1957), provides U. for alleged them bring criminals whose conduct does not within the constitutional extradition provision. U. S. Corkran, Const., Hyatt Art. ex rel. IV, 2; People § cooperative U. S. 691. There are numerous undertakings among States agencies study the formation of n joint problems suggestions and make for man- internal agement within individual States calculated to increase comity among the several preserves States. Interstate regulated are through the device of fusion of distinct state administrative agencies by joint means of sessions and joint action. The Federal Government has also acted aid of States matters of local concern through auxiliary legislation (in game for statutes, example), through grarits-in-a’d, through legislation calling coop- , eration particular be ween state administrative agencies agencies operating federal within the same general area of regulation. See and Landis, Frankfurter Compact Clause of the Constitution —A Study Inter- state L. Adjustments, Yale J. 685, About' 688-691! such instances it has they been said that “illustrate extra- constitutional forms legal invention for the solution of problems touching, more than one They state. were neither contemplated nor specifically provided for by the Constitution.” Frankfurter Landis, supra, at 691. .and
li the Federal' and arrangements The manifold an collaborate constitute extensive State Governments governmental activities not formu- cooperative network of any not offensive to of its lated in the Constitution but supra. Among provisions prohibitions. Clark, See by Dr. Clark are examples of such devices discussed Corps, System, Service Civilian Conservation Selective administration of the Pure deportation enforcement, law Drugs game statutes, Food and Act and the federal boarding prisoners federal-state contracts of federal in state facilities. arrangements beyond
To hold that these and other are Goyernment of the States and because power Federal is no in the specific empowering provision there United unwarrantedly án States would be to take Constitution powers constricted view of state and national and would Dif- functioning hobble the effective of' our federalism. responsi- power corollary fusion of its of diffusion its cooperative devising stimulus to effort bilities, system ways making and means for the federal work. It is an interplay That is not a mechanical structure. living government evolving forces of to meet needs society. complex The Constitution of the preclude United States does not relationships resourcefulness of between on mat- States ters as there is grant power Congress to which no an range .authority to whieh restricted within is inadequate. By reciprocal, voluntary individual State legislation the States have invented methods to accom- A plish unprohibited fruitful and ends.' citizen cannot shirk duty, thereby, his no matter how inconvenienced testify in criminal proceedings grand jury investiga- tions a State where he is found. There is no constitu- tional provision granting relief from this obligation him , testify though even he must to another State travel Comity States, do so. an among particularly end to be *10 internal object of crim- is enforcement cherished when the priori an a restrictive not to be defeated inal is laws, power. view state of Florida Supreme Court judgment
The the reversed, to that court the cause is remanded and opinion. this not inconsistent with proceedings remanded. Reversed and Black Douglas, Mr. Justice whom Justice Mr. concurs, dissenting. country egress free and within right ingress to right, beyond
and even borders is basic constitutional it haec verba in the Constitu- though is not contained in It in the of Confedera- tion. had been included Articles tion, part: in provided Article IV which
“The, mutual perpetuate better and secure people and friendship among intercourse in union, different states this the free inhabitants each and fugitives of these states, paupers, vagabonds from justice to all the excepted, shall be entitled in privileges and immunities of free citizens the sev- eral and state shall have states; people each free ingress regress any and from other state . . . Three Chafee, Rights Human in Constitution
As p. (1956), 185, states, specific provi- the failure make sion for right this the Constitution must have been on the assumption already it was included. For it is n impossibleto think right that a so in the deeply cherished rejected Colonies outright. was “The Convention care- fully prevented passing states from laws; surely tariff it did not cit., state immigration Chafee, want op. laws.” supra, at 185. The Constitution was secure designed “to the freest intercourse between the citizens of different Cases, in The States,” Justice Taney Passenger said Chief all great pur How. 492. And he added: “For Federal poses government formed, for which the we country. are one one common We are all people, with members of States; and, citizens of the as the same United pass have the community, repays must freely interruption, of it without as through every part Id., This right our own of free States.” one of the nature and egress “arising out ingress government.” character of the Federal Duncan essential Missouri, Twining 377, 382; Jersey, v. S. v. New U. 97. As Williams Court stated *11 Fears, 270, 179 U. S. 274:
“Undoubtedly right locomotion, the of the right to place according remove from to another to incli- one liberty, and the nation, personal an attribute of right, ordinarily, through of free transit from or the by the territory any right of State is a secured Four- provisions of the by teenth Amendment and other Constitution.”
It has a of right privilege often been called or national Nevada, citizenship; 35, 44, 49; v. 6 Ward Crandall Wall. Cases, Maryland, Slaughter 12 House 418, 430; Wall. Jersey, 16 Twining supra, 97; 36, 79; Wall. v. New California, 178-181, (con Edwards v. 314 183 160, U. S. curring opinions). such, protected against As it is state Privileges action and Immunities Clause of the Cases, Fourteenth House Slaughter supra, Amendment. Kemmler, In 74-79; at re 448. U. S. protective It has at times been considered under care subject by Congress of Commerce Clause to control from, but free or stoppage impairment States. California, supra. Edwards v. Dulles,
In Kent v. held that this right we “liberty” to travel was of the citizen’s part within Fifth Process Clause of the Due meaning Amendment. in either frontiers across movement
“Freedom of of part well, as inside frontiers direction, and within abroad, like heritage: Travel travel our It may necessary for a livelihood. may be country, the choice heart of the individual to the be as close or reads. Freedom wears, or eats, he of what Id., of values.” is basic our scheme movement at this of free move- right may be the sources
Whatever one stay home as any State right go ment —the citizenship and national ah incident of chooses—it values. in our constitutional occupies high place qualified. has been citizenship right This of national Extradition Clause made qualification was One IV, 2, Art. of the Constitution: § any Treason, State charged “A Person Justice, shall flee from who Felony, Crime, or other State, shall Demand found another on and be he Authority of the State from the executive to the State up, be delivered to be removed fled, having Jurisdiction the Crime.” applies of free But that limitation on movement *12 only fugitive the citizen is a from the law. when justice. a from He carries fugitive
Yet 'O’Neill is not a in no taint. He as witness New criminal wanted .is provision York. But there is no the Constitution provides by the extradition of which witnesses But I power today judicially That created. States. enlarge find no on the authority part States to and expand specifically by of extradition restricted power provision implemented by Congress. This an Act of C. c. 209.
Cn rel. People As stated in ex to criminals. the Constitution 825, 826, 64 N. E. 176, 182, 172 N. Y. Hyatt, Corkran v. or should be extra person “. . . no can aff’d 188 S.U. unless the order falls state to another from one dited . -. . which' provision, power the constitutional within to other surrender criminals nations have to independent comity possessed is not as a matter of favor or nations only a constitutional today allow what the states.” We' Art. IV, in effect amend achieve. amendment could We. group to the now to add “witnesses” 2,§ construction in IV," embraced Art. § of the innocent of movement even right
This of freedom a stop a State could Perhaps. be absolute. may not may inspection. health There at its borders for migrant this qualifications be other narrow' and limited But I may impose. a egress free which State ingress pick citizen power part know of no bn the of State him its boundaries where up forcibly remove from Blackmer v. United there is no extradition. basis.of States, There the help is of no here. United 284 U. S. to return to citizen, abroad, resident requiring States was him for his refusal. country testify penalizing this his he was rooted and where home, This was his which exacted the Federal loyalties lay.- obligation was requirement citizenship. as a of national Government responsibility Act, has this in an 62 Stat. Congress stated alia, inter makes it a federal 755,18 1073, which, § S. C. U. in “to person crime for a move interstate commerce .to testimony” proceedings. avoid in certain giving criminal explicit provision concerning Congress And made I may State to be removed.2 can which witness citizenship can regulation understand how this of national provides: may prose be Section “Violations of this section original only judicial crime cuted the Federal district which person alleged or in was held to have been committed custody or confinement.” *13 CD in speaks authority
be with Congress made I fail to see a field interstate commerce.3 how federal regulate any of national citizen- State can incidents part on the of a greater power I see no State ship. from and send him law-abiding snatch a citizen his abode border, than him at the as stop to another State California, in v. because it does not supra, done Edwards jib. precluded like the cut of his State action was in California, supra, though Congress Edwards v. even had obviously precluded not acted. It even more where is Congress has acted.4
Reciprocal laws, and uniform like interstate compacts, many a purposes. doubtless serve useful But State does agree- powers by making not increase its an sovereign ingress ment with another Whether the State. egress Privileges be and Immunities bottomed on Amendment, Clause of the Fourteenth the Commerce a “liberty” inherent citizen- Clause, basic national way I it ship, may know of no which a State take from To no say citizen. that there is interference here because to Florida is to O’Neill will be free return later trifle right. argument a basic human Court’s enables through reciprocal generate power the States laws to separately. importance It they acting speaks lack 3 Sess., p. 2; Rep. 1458, Cong., Rép. H. R. H. R. No. 73d 2d See States, Cong., Sess.,. p. 2; v. 1596, 73d 2d United 163 No. Hermans F. 2d 238-239. present impressive than the we have barred In situations no less Congress here, acted in the same field. state action where* as 597; Co., Hines Charleston & Car. R. Co. Varnville 237 U. S. v. v. Davidowitz, 52; Pennsylvania Nelson, U. S. 497. Co., supra, Car. R. Co. v. Varnville at Mr. In Charleston & speaking the Court Justice Holmes said: . Congress particular subject-matter hand has taken “When law not to opposition, ineffective as state coincidence attempts go Congress help because it farther than be declared go.” fit to has seen *14 relationships between of “resourcefulness encouraging
of grant power is no of on matters as to which there States authority re- of range Congress and as to which to ifYet inadequate.” is an individual State stricted within York or New Florida for power inadequate either it I fail to see how is), I am sure it separately (as acting inade- of their pooling adequate be made can achieve- a saltatorial make it such is indeed To quacies. can be com- of a State a resident ment. The fact that compelling for ground is no testify that State pelled to to some other State go to him leave State and “to his. 640. Allen, Rep. 631, In re 49 D. & C. testify viva voce.” national citizen- of is an incident go stay tó His of federal exercise appropriate an only by ship, qualified power.5 “policy of a expression an' extradition was
The of power Ken- justice,” to offenders bringing support, of mutual a substitute 100; and to Dennison, 66, 24 How. tucky v. system authority, for the superior to state law, of system Innes v. nations. sovereign among comity prevailing of govern- Act Federal 130-131. The Tobin, S. 240 U. by Congress is an fugitives are assertion who ing witnesses providing Any. policy nationals. our of control over from one State delivery of witnesses compulsory If we allow policy. a federal in other words another is might they like, we that-power as to exercise the States delivery of compulsory sanction them to permit as well Securing Compulsory Attendance Report on of Committee of Commis Conference of the National of Non-Resident Witnesses Evidence, Wigmore on Laws, reported in 8 sioners on State Uniform from legislation not free 2195(e), “This character states: § only we have found in difficulties, and the case constitutional directly upheld is the constitutionality been thereof has which the Supp. Klaus, Y. 130 N. v. of Massachusetts of Commonwealth case constitutionality York stat of the New cited the In case strong Judge Scott, there is a but opinion upheld an utes was in. Judge.Laughlin.” dissenting opinion being purposes into another for from one State citizens . Klaus, Supp. 713, N. Y. Massachusetts sued See took Art. (dissenting opinion). IV, § If it compulsory provide Constitution to delivery person another, from one State charged with crime delivery of witnesses over require and a Federal Act further it to follow lines, state would seem fortiori to authorize provisions required constitutional would be of an compulsory delivery one for the provide State to Allen, in re person supra. State. See innocent another *15 niggardly This is a con not the Constitution giving respect I a urge struction. liberal construction which will rights people civil of the citizens. This such for to remain they abode, choose State as like their against unmolested dwellings, protected in their be being away been, whisked has until another State6 today, zealously guarded. part it has been now, Until parcel pro of the cherished freedom of movement tected the Constitution.
I judgment affirm would unanimous entered the Florida Supreme vote of Court. procedure emphasized feature' The harshness of this Supreme
this extradition law on which Florida Court not yet passed. (N. 618-a; Y. The New statute Code Crim. Proc. York § 942.02) gives Stat., Fla. the witness who extradited see § York, plainly only day sum $5 a his in New mainténance living. inadequate light today’s cost of