"The jurisdiction of the court in which the indictment is found is not impaired by the manner in which the accused is brought before it."

—was brought from another jurisdiction, whether by kidnapping, illegal arrest, abduction, or irregular extradition proceedings, and Federal statutory or constitutional provisions are not violated by reason of the illegal means adopted in bringing an accused within a jurisdiction where he is then held under proper process, and, specifically, the trial of a person brought into a …

—arose upon an application of the Governor of West Virginia to the District Court of the United States for the District of Kentucky, for the release of Mahon upon a writ of habeas corpus, upon the ground that he had been, while residing in West Virginia, and in violation of her laws, without warrant or other legal process, arrested by a body of armed men from Kentucky, and …

—the state where a party charged with a crime committed in another state is found, nor have they made any provision for the return of parties who, by violence and without lawful authority, have been abducted from a state, and, whatever effect may be given by a state court to the illegal mode in which a defendant is brought from another state, no right secured under the …

—the Supreme Court held that "the offender against the law of the State is not relieved from liability*** because of indignities committed against another state."

—he contrasted the right of completely sovereign states to respond to such injury: If the States of the Union were possessed of an absolute sovereignty, instead of a limited one, they could demand of each other reparation for an unlawful invasion of their territory and the surrender of the parties abducted, and of parties committing the offence, and in case of refusal to comply …

Mr. Justice Field, speaking for a majority of the court, said for the court: " `So in this case, it is contended that, because under the Constitution and laws of the United States a fugitive from justice from one State to another can be surrendered to the State where the crime was committed, upon proper proceedings taken, he has the right of asylum in the State to which he has

—c) That the act of 1793 (now Rev. Stat., No. 5278) was enacted for the purpose of controlling the subject in so far as it was deemed wise to do so, and that its provisions were intended to be dominant and so far as they operated controlling and exclusive of state power.

We have applied Ker to numerous cases where the presence of the defendant was obtained by an interstate abduction.

—state court as a question of common law or of the law of nations, as it is of the courts of the United States.