National Republican., 1886-09-10

DIR. Wharton then cites the clause OF the
sixth amendment TO the United States con-
stitution guaranteeing the accused trial
In 1.-THE state and district wherein the crime
shall have been committed" aud states
that few questions claimed earlier or more
conspicuous attention from the Executive
than those which concerned the arrest and
punishment at home Of offenses against our
sovereignty, or against the law Of nations
abroad" After reviewing the various
statutes adopted by Congress, and the many
decisions OF the courts on the subject, he
reaches the following conclusion;
We have, therefore, in our constitution, our
siaiutes, and our judicial decisions repeated
anlrmations OF the principle that where an
9hense takes place within our borders, or is
directed against our laws, then wo havo
Jurlsdietlon 70 punish It, Irrespective Of the
residence Of the offender Mt the time of the
consummetion.
To the United states these considerations
boundary lies Mexico, with whom, II we have
treaty for extradition, IL is treaty OF very
recent adoption, and OF oapricious applica-
leo Is such that II is hopeless TO look TO Next
can courts to punish olIenses concocted in
Mexico for execution In our own land: .
five announce the principle that Mexico
alone hes jurisdiction in such cases, what
would become Of us7 The Mexican side OF
our boundary would be the undsputed abode
of hordes Of depredators, who would mako our
country desert for many miles dcep.
The learned author asserts the broad doc.
tiine, first, that "the state can prosecute
others than It's own subjects when they as
sail its rights" and second, that the right
OF the state to prosecute 'is not limited TO
those who owerecorporeally withinits borders
at the time Of the commission OF any Of
fense for which II is incumbent on IL TO ex-
act retribution." Lest there should be any
WWNtE H.. II - a.
the "rights OF the state,n ho Is particular
to give them specific description, as follows;
1t is the duty of the state to protect, not
merely Its territory, but its rights. These
rights are, first, Its political integrity; second
me lie, safety, and property OF its subjects
When these rights are assailed on its own soil
BY offenders who either remain at the time
OF the onense on foreign soil, or return to such
soil where the olense is committed, we may
exercise our Jurisdiction In two ways.
We may go step further, and apply the same
reasoning 10 wrongs inflicted on our citizens
in foreign lands. To each OF these citizens we
owe protection, no matter where he may be,
He pays us, in fact, for this protection. =
Hence, IL an American citizen Is murdered or
plundered abroad, IL Is the duty OF his country
70 exact redress and retaliation. Ifthe crime
Is committed In civilized country, the exao-
tion is by requisition on the sovereign within
whose boundaries the ofieuse was committed,
ana the requisition is either 10 delucr NE eOTend-
ment.
The best evidence that DIR. Wharton is
sustained both by jurists and the American
public In his exposition OF extra-territorial
jurisdiction is found In the fact that the
statutes and codes OF the various states of
the Union contain provisions comforting
jurisdiction upon the state courts over
offenses committed beyond their territorial
limits. Without extending this article by
numerous citations, II will be sufficient to
nrnyfcinna nj ha 10 -
1881 Of the state Of New York, which was
framed by the ablest lawyers and adopted
after the most thorough discussion and ex-
animation. Section 461 Of this code pro-
yides that person "who, being resident
Of this state, does any act without the state
which would be punishable by the pro-
visions OF this title (crimes against the pub
lie peace), IL committed within the state, is
guilty Of the same offense and subject to
the same punishment as II the act had been
committed within this state" The offenses
enumerated under this title are quite
numerous, and many Of them mere mis-
demeanors. Section 239 as to duelling and
challenges has similar provision. But
extrat territorial Jurisdiction is declared in
the broadest sense by the following:
SEC. GIG. A person who commits an act with.
out this state which affects persons or property
or decency of this state, and which, II com.
mitted within this state, would be a crime, Ia
also punishable as If the act were committed
SEC. 67s. An act or omission declared pun
isbable by this code is not less 30 because II is
also punishable under the laws OF another state,
government, or country unless the contrary Ii
expressly declared in this code.
II will thus be seen that the penal code
OF the state Of New York confers jurlsdic-
ton over offenses committed In foreign
territory to much greater degree than the
Mexican code, the abrogation of which is
demanded by Secretary Bayard. The latter
code has been very carefully drawn and Is
limited in Its application, while that Of New
York confers Jurisdiction for all acts
(which affect persons or property within
the state, or the public health, morals, or
decency within the state" In another re-
spect It is broader in Its application. It is
requisite OF the Mexican code that the
offense should be crime both In the coun-
trywhere committed and In Mexico; where
as the New York code only requires the act
to be crime according to that code.
1t has already been seen that the United
States statutes confer Jurisdiction upon the
federal courts over foreigners for humber
OF offenses, II committed abroad, and In q
large number OF the states OF the Union
there are similar statutes. And this jurls.
dictlon is conferred In conformity to the
principle laid down by DR.. Wharton, that
"lt is the duty Of the state to protect the
| life, safety, and property Of its Subjects"
| irrespective OF the circumstances whether
| the offender is citizen or foreigner, OF
whether he was within or without its terri
| tory at the time OF the commission OF the
| Injurious act. We cannot in this article cite
oil these statutes, and will connne our
| reference to the state Of Texas, the imme-
| diate neighbor OF Mexico. We find In the
Penal Code Of 1870 now in force the follow
| ing:
ARTICLE 45i. Persons out of this state may
commit, and be liable to indictment and con
| yiction for committing, any of the ofienses
hereinbefore enumerated forgery Of land titles
and other documentsl, which do not In theil
| commission necessarily require personal
presence in this state, The object Of mis- act beinl
| 10 reach and punish all persons OFFENDING dgdi,ls
It's provisions, Whether within or loitout he state
and indiotments under this act may be pre-
| this state, or in the county where the ofiense
| was committed, or in the county where the
land lies, about which the offenses in this act
ARTICLE sos. A conspiracy entered into in
| another state or territory of the United States
| to commit any one OF the otfenses named II
article, s0l murder, robbery, arson, burglary
rape. then, or forgery In this state, shall 6t
| punished in the same manner as II the con.
spiracy had been entered into in this state,
| The power of the legislature of the statt
| OF Texas 10 confer extra-territorial juris
| dictlon upon It's courts has been 1udicially
passed upon by the Supreme Court In thu
case OF Ham VS.. The State, Texas Reports
Ham, a citizen and resident Of the state o
Missouri, was arrested In and extraditet
from that state and tried In Texas unde
Indictment for forgery Of Texas land title
committed, II at all, In Missouri. The Su
| preme Court held that nothing in the pro
visions OF article 454, above quoted, contra
yenes the constitution OF the United State
or Of the state of Texas, nor transcends tn,
| power OF the legislature Of the state.
LOOK to the senate"--and the Senatorial, ;
| Resigned and Transferred.