fugitive in respect of his escape from the Constantinople prison.41 It was held, under the treaty between the United States and Great Britain of 1899, providing for the extradition of persons charged with crimes committed within the jurisdiction of either nation, that extradition will not be granted from the United States of a person charged with the commission of an offense prior to the proclamation of Lord Roberts in 1900, declaring that the South African Republic was a British colony.42 The "Bennington," a war vessel of the United States, in 1894 arrived off the Golden Gate, having on board a number of citizens of Salvador, to whom an asylum had been granted, and she remained outside until the 23d of August. Instructions having been received from the Navy Department, she came inside the harbor, when a United States marshal served warrants on them on charges of crime preferred under the extradition treaty between Salvador and the United States. When the prisoners were brought before the federal district court, a plea was interposed to the court's jurisdiction on the ground that they were brought by the government of the United States forcibly and against their will, and hence were not, within the meaning of the treaty, fugitives from justice, but the court overruled the plea.43 It was said by Mr. Hay, Secretary of State, that while a conspiracy formed within the United States to commit a crime abroad may be punishable in the United States, the authorities of the government within whose territory the conspiracy was to be effectuated could not obtain the extradition of the persons concerned in the conspiracy.44 § 311. Irregularities in extradition.-A person who has been brought from a foreign country by proceedings which violate a treaty between that country and the United States, and which are forbidden by that treaty, may raise the question by a plea to an indictment in a state court, and if the right asserted by the plea is denied, the supreme court of the United States can review "Mr. Lincoln, Minister to England, to Mr. Blaine, Secretary of State, No. 485, June 30, 1891, 168 MS. Desp. from England. 42 In re Taylor, 118 Fed. 196. The Salvadorean Refugees, Am. Law Rev., Jan.-Feb., 1895; 4 Moore "Mr. Hay, Secretary of State, to Baron Fava, Italian Ambassador, No. 654, March 8, 1901, MS. Notes to Ital. Leg., IX, 508. 45 the judgment of the state court.4 To enable the supreme court of the United States, however, to review the judgment, the right claimed must be under the Constitution, laws or treaties of the United States. If a prisoner has been kidnaped in a foreign country and brought by force against his will within the jurisdiction of the state, the law of which he is charged with violating, without attempting to proceed under the extradition treaty, although one exists, the supreme court of the United States is powerless to grant relief.46 The manner in which the accused is brought before a state court does not impair its jurisdiction. Therefore, it is no objection to the trial and detention of a prisoner that he has been forcibly abducted from another state, and conveyed within the jurisdiction of the court detaining him.“ Where a person is held under process legally issued from the courts of a state, the supreme court of the United States will not interfere to relieve him, although he may have been arrested and taken by violence from the territory of one state to that of another.48 § 312. Indictment and trial valid.—The courts have refused to discharge a prisoner returned from another state by means of false affidavits,49 and the state courts have frequently declined. to order the discharge of a prisoner kidnaped and taken from another state; 50 in other words, it may be stated that the indictment and trial may be valid although the original arrest was illegally made.51 A fugitive from justice is not guaranteed by the treaties of extradition an asylum, and such treaties do not give him any greater or more sacred right than he possessed before. Their object is to provide that for certain crimes he shall be deprived of that asylum and surrendered to justice, and they prescribe the manner of accomplishing this object.52 45 Ker v. Illinois, 119 U. S. 436, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 225, 30 L. ed. 421. 46 Ker v. Illinois, 119 U. S. 436, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 225, 30 L. ed. 421. Cook v. Hart, 146 U. S. 183, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 43, 36 L. ed. 934. 48 Cook v. Hart, 146 U. S. 183, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 40, 36 L. ed. 934. 49 In re Moore, 75 Fed. 824. Pac. 40, 15 L. R. A. 193; Baker v. 52 Ker v. Illinois, 119 U. S. 436, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 225, 30 L. ed. 421. The federal courts have jurisdiction of extradition proceedings under treaty. In re Ezeta, 62 Fed. 967. A prisoner convicted of a nonextradit § 313. Action by the government.-But the government in which the arrest is made may have a cause for complaint. In 1891 Rufino Rueda was arrested at Key West, for the purpose of extradition, on a charge of murder committed in Havana. On the night of his arrest he was taken by Spanish agents, placed on board of a vessel, and taken to Havana. The United States demanded his return to American jurisdiction, subject to such extradition process as the government of Spain might, under the treaty, subsequently institute, and in compliance with this demand the Spanish government caused the return of the prisoner to Key West.53 A nation that claims a fugitive from justice has not the right to invade the territorial waters of another state for the purpose of causing the arrest of such fugitive.54 In 1892 a boy, fifteen years of age, a citizen of Canada, was kidnaped in New York and enticed across the boundary into Canada. The British government voluntarily agreed to return him to the place in New York from which he had been abducted.55 In 1863 two Canadian constables abducted two persons, Wilson and McElvery, from Michigan, and Mr. Seward, Secretary of State, complained of the abduction. The governor-general of Canada disavowed the action of the officers, and expressed regret for the occurrence, and offered to restore immediately the abducted persons should the United States so require. It appeared that the persons abducted had violated the laws of Canada, and able offense will be refused a discharge after a voluntary return. In re Cross, 43 Fed. 520. An extradited prisoner claiming not to be a fugitive was refused a discharge. Eaton v. West Virginia, 91 Fed. 766, 61 U. S. App. 676, 34 C. C. A. 68. The abduction of a prisoner will not prevent his trial and conviction. Mahon v. Justice, 127 U. S. 700, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1204, 32 L. ed. 283; State v. Brewster, 7 Vt. 118; People v. Rowe, 4 Park. Cr. Rep. 253; State v. Ross, 21 Iowa, 467. But see contra, State v. Simmons, 39 Kan. 262, 18 Pac. 177. Where a prisoner was disTreaties-23 charged on the principle of comity between states, see Com. v. Shaw (Pa.), 6 Crim. L. Mag. 245. As to extradition effected by false affidavit authorizing a discharge on habeas corpus after conviction, see State v. Jackson, 36 Fed. 258, 1 L. R. A. 370. 53 MS. Inst. Spain, XXI, 54, 65; Dispatch No. 216, March 5, 1892, from the American legation at Madrid, 124 MS. Desp. from Spain. 54 MS. Inst. Brazil, XV, 119, Mr. Buchanan, Secretary of State, to Mr. Wise, September 27, 1845. had fled to Michigan. Under the circumstances, Mr. Seward stated that he would not insist on their liberation or restoration, but would remit them to the penalties which had been adjudged against them by the laws of the country whose laws had been violated by them.56 Mr. F. Webster, Acting Secretary of State, in a note addressed in 1841 to Mr. Fox, the British Minister, stated that a party of British soldiers had entered a house in Vermont and carried off one Grogan to Canada, and expressed the opinion, if the facts should appear to be as alleged, that the British government would liberate the prisoner and punish the offenders. Mr. Fox, in response, stated that before the receipt of any official communication, but upon the receipt of a report of the matter, the British government had ordered the release of Grogan and his restoration to the state of Vermont, should there appear to be confirmation of the reported illegality of his arrest. Grogan, after an investigation of the case, was ordered released, and was conducted by a sheriff to a place in Vermont, as near the place of his abduction. as it was possible to ascertain.57 Other instances have occurred which have become the subjects of diplomatic correspondence between the United States and other governments, when persons have been taken from one country to another, and in which the restoration of the rescued prisoner has been demanded. § 314. Criminal by the law of both countries. It is not necessary, to make an offense criminal by the laws of both countries, that there should be absolute identity in the statutes defining the offense. Taking, for instance, the treaty with Great Britain, we find that extradition shall be effected only "upon such evidence of criminality as, according to the laws of the place where the fugitive or person so charged shall be found, 6 Mr. Seward, Secretary of State, to Lord Lyons, British Minister, June 6, 1863, MS. Notes to Great Britain, X, 67. Several cases have occurred in some of which demand for return of kidnaped prisoners was made by the United States and in others demand was made upon the United States. F. Webster, Acting Secretary of State, to Mr. Fox, September 28, 1841; Mr. Fox to Mr. Webster, October 21, and November 26, 1841; Mr. Webster, Secretary of State, to Mr. Fox, November 27, 1841, MS. Dep. of State. would justify his apprehension and commitment for trial, if the crime or offense had there been committed." 58 But under this provision of the treaty it is sufficient if the essential character of the transaction constituting the offense is the same, and the statutes of each country make it criminal." § 315. Bonds and coupons.-Where copies of bonds and coupons were innocently made by engravers for the use of corporations as samples, and were never delivered to the corporations, they are not forged instruments so long as they are innocently retained by the engravers or others to whom they are delivered. But they become forgeries when they are fraudulenly uttered as genuine, even if they are not altered.60 § 316. Common-law crimes.-Under the treaty with Mexico it was held that a person may be extradited from the United States to Mexico for the crime of forgery of an instrument which the laws of Mexico make an offense, the Mexican authorities having held him for the offense. It was contended that the real definition of forgery was to be found in the common law of England, and that although the transaction complained of might have been a cheat, it was not a forgery within the meaning of the treaty. But the court answered that the common law of England could hardly be said to be the only criterion by which to construe the language of a treaty, and that Mexico could not be supposed to have the common law exclusively in mind as governing the true construction of a treaty between it and this country, neither of which owed any allegiance to England. The court further said there were no common-law crimes of the United States, and that it could not be said that the Mexican authorities intended to be bound by any very restricted use of the word "forgery" "when the question concerned an offense of that character committed in Mexico. It is for an offense against Mexican law that the prisoner is held to answer. 61 Treaty of 1842, art. 10, 8 Stats. at Large, 572, 576. Wright v. Henkel, 190 U. S. 59, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 785, 47 L. ed. 954; In re Wright, 123 Fed. 463. 60 In re Count de Toulouse Lautrec, 102 Fed. 878, 43 C. C. A. 42. 457, 234. Benson v. McMahon, 127 U. S. |