Staunton spectator. [volume] (Staunton, Va.) 1849-1896, 1886-08-18
The Mexican Contention.

-4lf. n. VI. OeuSWlCk, d NtW lOIk lawyer,
who is familiar with the Spanish language,
has been sent by Secretary Bayard to Paso
del Norte to obtain correct transcript of
the proceedings at the trial of Cutting, and
thus to ascertain beyond further question
whether evidence of what he did on Ameri-
can soil was introduced as material part of
the testimony on which he was convicted.
His mission is in no sense of a diplomatic
nature. He is not accredited to the Next
can government and he will not proceed to
the City of Mexico unless the full accom-
plishment of his purpose of acquiring all the
facts Of the Cutting case demands that ex-
tension of his mission. Mr.. Sedgwick is in
no proper sense of the word an ''envoy," as
the term implies direct communication
with a foreign government through q
diplomatic representative, nor has Mr..
Sedgwick been sent to "arbitrate" the right
of an American citizen to be tried on his own
soil for offenses committed in the United
States, as was asserted several days ago by
the enemies of the present administration.
Yet the New York Sun, the World and the
mugwump press generally, ignoring the
facts, persist in calling Mr.. Sedgwick an
'senvoy" and in describing his mission as a
backward step of the State Department
This is an obvious perversion of the truth.
In the dispatch of Mr.. Bayard to Minister
Jackson of July 81 it is stated by the Score.
tary of State that Mr.. Romero, the Mexi-
can minister at Washington, in an inter-
view on the gath, based the Mexican pre-
tension to try Cutting on article 1856 of the
Mexican code, which assumes to give Next
co jurisdiction over crimes committed a.
gainst Mexicans within the United States.
This official statement of the ground taken
by the Mexican federal government justified
Mr.. Bayard fully in demanding Cutting
release. If Mr.. Romero made an incorrect
and automatically weak statement of the
Mexican position, it was not Mr.. Bavard S
affair. He was not responsible for the
Mexican minister's mistake, if mistake
there was, but had to deny "peremptorily
and positively" the claims of jurisdiction
put forth in article 1856 of the Mexican code
and reduced to practice, according to Ar.
Romero, in Cuttings case. This denial
Mr. Bayard still maintains. If Mr.. Sedg-
wick's inquiries show that article 1856 was
in fact brought into operation at Ell Paso,
then the representation made by the Next
can minister will be the more speedily shown
to have been correct, and the issue will re-
main and Cuttings release may be expect
ed If, on the other hand, it be shown that
Mr.. Romero was mistaken, and that testi-
mony was not taken as to what Cutting did
in violation of Mexican law in Texas, then
the incident will be closed, Mr.. Romero
will, in that case, be chiefly to blame for
asserting, on insufficient grounds, claim
which the United States government could
not possibly, with proper respect for the
rights of American citizenship, admit to be
valid, and thus uselessly raising a trouble
some question between two friendly govern.
ments. Mr.. Sedgwick's mission, though
susceptible of misrepresentation by political
opponents, win have its use in producing
what the Mexican government with its slug
gish habits has not yet been able to present
AN Ineligible and accurate account OF
the actual facts of the trial at FL Paso.-
With this account before them both gov.
ernmen:s will be able to bring to speedy
close discussion that promises without il
to last till dOomsday-BQH Sun