34é* FEDERAL nnronrnn.
thjepetitioner the immunity he claims, it is by mere implication, for
assui*ed1yiit°does not in express terms confer on extradited persons
any immunity whatsoever. It provides that the respective govern-
ments, upon requisition made and upon satisfactory evidence of the
alleged criminality, shall "deliver up to justice" all persons who, be-
ing charged with any of seven specified crimes, (of which burglary is
not one,) committed within the jurisdiction of either, shall seek an
asylum or be found within the territories of the other. There is,
however, no provision in the treaty guarantying to the extraditedi
person the right to leave the demanding country after his trial for the
offense for which he was surrendered, in case of acquittal, or, in case
of his conviction, after his endurance of the punishment therefor.
Nor is there any express limitation upon the causes of his detention.
Indeed, as to his disposition after his surrender the treaty is alto-
gether silent. The high contracting parties might have provided for `
a surrender upon conditions, but they have not seen nt. to do so.
Whencefthen, springs the petitioner’s supposed immunity? Upon
what sound principle can the demand of this convicted criminal, to
be set at liberty before the expiration of his sentence, be allowed?
' Clearly, can offender can acquire no rights against the claims of jus-
tice by flight to a foreign jurisdiction, (State v. Brewster, 7 Vt. 118;
D0w’s Case, 18 Pa. St. 37;) and extradition treaties are not made in
the interest of fugitive criminals. In the absence, then,»of express
stipulation imposing restraints upon the receiving government, it
seems to me the intention is not to be imputed to the parties to the
treaty to exempt the surrendered fugitive from deserved punishment
for an offense (regarded by the laws of both countries as a gross
crime) of which he had previously been duly convicted. It may have
been open to the petitioner, when before the Canadian courts, to show
that the extradition proceedings were not prosecuted in good faith.
But, having ·been surrendered, it is not for him to raise that question
before the tribunals of his own country. Adriance v. Lagmve, supra;
D0w’s Case, supra. ·~ `
I am of opinion that the petitioner’s complaint, that he is in cus-
tody in violation of the treaty under which he was ext1·adited, is
grouéidless. Hence his discharge must be denied; and it is so or-
dere .