with crimes in the states or other territories of the United States, that may now be exercised by the governor of Arkansas in that state, and he may issue requisitions upon the governors of the states and other territories for persons who have committed offenses in the Indian Territory, and who have taken refuge in such states and territories."

Section 41, U. S. Stats. at Large, volume 26, page 99.

Federal Stats. Ann., volume 3, page 415, chapter entitled "Indians."

The statute is also passed on in the fourth assignment of errors in the case of Ex parte Dickson, 69 S. W. Rep., 947.

As some uncertainty may exist as to the district judge in charge of the district where the fugitive is arrested, I would think it would be well to address the papers to the justices of the District Court of Indian Territory, if it is impossible to name the special judge presiding over the district where the party is ar rested. Then there is always the possibility of this particular judge being absent from the territory, and there may be the necessity of presenting it to the chief justice, or some other justice. The division of the territory into judicial districts is for the convenience of the judges, and is not a limitation upon the jurisdic tion of any particular judge or court.

I would, therefore, advise that the papers be made out to the justices of the District Court of the Indian Territory.

Requisition papers, for a fugitive from justice, complying with the requirements of the Act of Congress, in such cases made and provided, may properly be honored.

August 9, 1905.

HON. JESSE F. McDONALD,

Governor of Colorado,

State Capitol.

Sir I have carefully examined the requisition and accompanying papers from the governor of the state of California upon the Governor of the State of Colorado for the extradition of Charles Shumway, an alleged fugitive from justice, charged with the crime of rape, alleged to have been committed upon Ruby

Bryant, a female under the age of sixteen years, in the county of San Diego, state of California, the said Shumway now being in the city of Denver, Colorado, which papers were submitted to this office by your Excellency for an opinion as to their sufficiency.

Upon the hearing which was given by you to the parties con cerned, two objections were urged in behalf of the alleged fugitive to the validity of the requisition, viz.:

First That the complaint was not made before the proper authority;

Second: That no satisfactory reason was given for delay in making the application.

The papers show that the complaint was sworn to by Ruby Bryant before M. B. Anderson, justice of the peace of the city of San Diego, and acting justice of the peace of the township of San Diego, California, and that the warrant against Shumway was issued and signed by said Anderson under section 1427 of the Penal Code of California. The complaining witness, Ruby Bryant, also made an affidavit before Milton R. Thorp, justice of the peace of San Diego township, San Diego county, California, which is on file in the papers, containing substantially the same statements sworn to before Justice Anderson. The complaint, warrant of arrest and affidavit of Ruby Bryant are all in proper form and duly authenticated by the justices of the peace, the county clerk and the governor of California, the latter certifying that the charge is properly made under the laws of California, and the official character of the justices of the peace is also duly certified.

As to the second objection, the affidavit of the sheriff shows that he received the warrant of arrest on the 25th day of April, 1905, and that he thereupon endeavored to locate the defendant in the city of Los Angeles and other parts of the state, without success; also communicated with the authorities in Kansas City, Missouri, but did not learn of the whereabouts of Shumway until May 23, 1905.

The application for the requisition to the governor of California by the district attorney of San Diego county was made on the next day, namely, the 24th day of May, 1905.

This certainly was no delay. I do not consider the objections well taken.

By the Constitution of the United States:

"A person charged in any state with treason, felony, or other crime, who shall flee from justice and be found in another state, shall, on demand of the executive authority of the state from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the state having jurisdiction of the crime."

Const. U. S., article IV, section 2.

The statute of the United States enacted by Congress, section 5278, Revised Statutes, is as follows:

"Whenever the executive authority of any state or territory demands any person as a fugitive from justice, of the executive authority of any state or territory to which such person has fled, and produces a copy of an indictment found, or affidavit made before a magistrate of any state or territory, charging the person demanded with having committed treason, felony, or other crime, certified as authentic by the governor or chief magistrate of the state or territory from whence the person so charged has fled, it shall be the duty of the executive authority of the state or territory to which such person has fled, to cause him to be arrested and secured, and to cause notice of the arrest to be given to the executive authority making such demand, or to the agent of such authority, appointed to receive the fugitive, and to cause the fugitive to be delivered to such agent when he shall appear."

It is also provided by the statutes of Colorado as follows:

"Whenever the executive of any other state, or of any territory of the United States, shall demand of the executive of this State any person as a fugitive from justice, and shall have complied with the requisitions of the act of Congress in that case made and provided, it shall be the duty of the executive of this State to issue his warrant under the seal of the State to apprehend the said fugitive, directed to any sheriff, coroner or constable of any county of the State, or other person whom the said executive may think fit to intrust with the execution of said process.

1 M. A. S., section 2037.

Even if it be true that the complaint and warrant signed by Justice Anderson are not valid, there is on file an affidavit made before Justice Thorp, making the same charge, and in proper form, and duly certified by the governor of the state of California, which seems to me clearly to bring the case within the provisions of the act of Congress referred to, which authorizes the production of an affidavit made before a magistrate, charging the person with having committed treason, felony, or other crime, and certified as authentic by the governor of the state fled from, and which makes it the duty of the executive authority of the state to which he has fled, to cause him to be arrested and delivered to the agent of the executive authority making the demand.

I am of the opinion that the papers substantially comply with the rules of practice in such cases made and provided, and that they are sufficient to authorize you to honor the requisition. Respectfully yours,

N. C. MILLER,

Attorney General.

By W. R. RAMSEY, Assistant Attorney General.

GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT.

Game and fish importers must take out license for the entire year.

February 27, 1906.

HON. J. M. WOODARD,

Game and Fish Commissioner,

State Capitol.

Dear Sir-I am in receipt of your favor of this date, asking for an opinion as to whether game and fish importers can take out a license for a part of a year only, and in reply I beg to advise you that section 4, division D, of the game law provides that:

"No person shall import or bring into this State from any other state or territory, and sell, any game or fish of the kind mentioned in this act, until he shall have procured from the commissioner a license as a game and fish importer, but no such license shall authorize the importation or sale of game, the killing of which is not permitted by the laws of this State.

"Such license shall be kept constantly and publicly exposed in the office or place of business of the licensee, and shall expire with the calendar year in which issued."

And section 2, of division M, of the same law provides that the importers' license fee shall be fifty dollars.

I find no provision in the game law for allowing a license to be issued for less than fifty dollars, and such a license expires with the calendar year.

I am of the opinion that the Legislature did not intend that any license should be issued for a part of a year only.

Respectfully submitted,

N. C. MILLER,

Attorney General.

By I. B. MELVILLE, Assistant Attorney General.

GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT.

Court has no right to remit or reduce fines collected for violations of game laws.

April 28, 1906.

HON. J. M. WOODARD,

Game and Fish Commissioner,

State Capitol.

Dear Sir-In reply to your written inquiry of the 27th inst., as to whether or not a court has the right to remit any portion of the minimum fine assessed for a violation of the game law, beg to advise you as follows:

Section 4, division L, reads:

I

"Every person or officer violating any of the provisions of this act, otherwise than as contemplated in section 3 of this division, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and be punished by a fine of not less than $25 nor more than $500, or by imprisonment in the county jail not less than 10 days nor more than six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment."

Section 10, division L, reads:

"All moneys collected for fines under this act shall be immediately paid over by the justice or clerk collecting the same, as follows: One-third into the treasury of the county where the offense was committed, one-third to the commissioner and onethird to the person instituting the prosecution. Provided, That if the person instituting the prosecution shall fail for ten days. after such collection and due notice thereof to demand the portion to which he is entitled, the same shall be paid to the commissioner and the right of such person thereunder shall be deemed forfeited.

"The commissioner, any warden or officer instituting a prosecution shall be entitled to a share in the fines collected, the same as any other person, and it shall be a personal perquisite, for which he need not account."

Section 4, division K, reads:

"No fine, penalty or judgment assessed or rendered under this act, or the act of which it is amendatory, shall be suspended, reduced or remitted otherwise than as expressly provided by law."

Since there is no provision in the game laws granting authority to a court to reduce or remit any portion of the fine, I am of the opinion that no such authority exists, and that each court