The intervention of the government of Mexico raises serious questions, involving the claimed violation of its sovereignty, which may well be presented to the Executive Department of the United States, but of which this court has no jurisdiction.

"Indeed, there are many authorities which go to the extent of holding that in criminal cases a forcible abduction is no sufficient reason why the party should not answer when brought within the jurisdiction of the court which has the right to try him for such an offense, and presents no valid objection to his trial in such court.

—the court uses this language: "It becomes then imma-terial, whether the prisoner was brought out of Canada with the assent of the authorities of that country or not. If there were anything improper in the transaction, it was not that the prisoner was entitled to protection on his own account. The illegality, if any, consists in a violation of the sovereignty of an in-dependent …

An offender, escaping into Canada, and brought back against his will, and without the assent of the authorities of the province, may yet be tried and punished for the offence committed here.

—the identity of the abductors is not clear, but the conviction of the abducted fugitive was sustained.

—it was held, that, if stolen goods are found in the possession of the prisoner, it is a question for the jury, how far, under all circumstances, that possession raises a presumption of guilt in the particular case.

But decisions relying upon this proposition have not been founded upon an adequate consideration of the effect to be attributed to an arrest abroad in violation of treaty or international law.

Presumed Canada assented to forcible removal of defendant; "If they waive the invasion of their sovereignty, it is not for the respondent to object, inasmuch, as for this offence, he is, by the law of nations, amenable to our laws.... Were this an attempt to subject the prisoner to the exercise of our jurisdiction, in a case not confessedly within it, the case would be different

If that nation complain, it is a matter which concerns the political relations of the two countries, and in that aspect, is a subject not within the constitutional powers of this court

—holding that, in a case where a criminal defendant was abducted from his home in Canada to stand trial in Vermont, "it [wa] s not for [the court] to inquire by what means or in what precise manner,[the defendant had] been brought within the reach of justice

[BOOK] A Treatise on the Law of Evidence: Vol. 2

[BOOK] A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States: Vol. II