2d- FEDERAL nmronrim.
justice or judge of the United States, or by any commissioner of a cir-
cuit eourt to take bail, * , * * at theexpense of the United States,
‘ be arrested and imprisoned or bailed, as the case may be, for trial be-
fore such court of the United States as by law has cognizance of the of-
fense. * "?., * And where any offender or witness is committed in
any district other thau.that_where thejoflense is to be tried, it shall be
the Aduty of the judge of the district where such offender or witness is A
imprisoned, seasonably to issue, and of the marshal to execute, a war-
‘ rant for his removal to the district where the trial is to be had." It is
true that this section contains no provision for a preliminary examina-
tion in such cases, but it does provide that the accused may be " arrested
and imprisoned or bailed." This is to be done agreeably to the usual
mode of process against offenders in the state where he is found, as the
· section further expressly provides; and- we know that, by the course of
practice in this state, an oifendjer is not imprisoned or held to bail with-
out a previous examination into his probable guilt, unless he waives ex-
· amination. It is by this course of proceeding, also, that the identity
of the prisoner is established; and it seems very clear that, in cases where
the removal ofthe accused issought from the district where he is found
to the district in another state where the offense was committed, the act
‘ of congress was intended to require a preliminary examinationby the
committing magistrate, so that such magistrate, and the judge who may
be applied to for a warrant of removal, shall be satisfied of the identity
· of the prisoner, and of` his probable guilt. Otherwise great injustice
mightbe doneto an accused person.- The language of section 1014 leaves
no doubt that the preliminary inquiry should be had in the district
where the offender is found; This statement of the practice in such cases,
is -but a reiteration of the views expressed on the question by Mr. Justice
Mrnrma and Judge Lovn, in 1 Woolw. C. C. 422-427. ·
_ ~ The prisonerlis charged withan odense under section 5469, Rev. St.
i Objection ismade to his removalto Minnesota, on the— ground that the
evidence adducedbefore thecommissioner does not show the commis-
sion of ‘-any offense punishable under the section referred to. That sec-
tion provides, among other things, that-
ff Any person who shall steal the mail, or steal or take from or out of any
mail or post—0tHce, branch post~otHce, or other authorized depository for mail
matter, any letter or packet; any person who shall take the mail, or any letter
or packet therefrom, or from any postomce, branch post-ofiice, or other au-
thorized depository for mail matter,-4with or without the consent of the per-
sou having custody thereof, and open, embezzle, or destroy any such mail,
letter, or package which shall contain any note, bond, draft, check, etc.,
rt   * _ shall, although not employed in the postal service, be punishable, "
e c. ‘
* It appears, from the testimony in the case, that Biederman had a box
in the Wells post-ofhce, and one Banse was in the habit of receiving his
mailnthrough the same box, by arrangement with Biederman. They
were neighbors, living in the country, and the prisoner was at the time
in the servicevof Banse, doing work ou his farm. The accused called at