New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1886-08-19
THE CASE OF CUTTING.
CRITICIslNG MR. BAYARD,s COURSE.
HOW he COMMITTED BLUNDER IN DEMANDING
THE RELEASE.

HOW he Committed BLUNDER IN DEMANDING
THE RELEASE.
TO ne Edttor or The Trioune
SIR: The course pursued by Secretary Bay
ard in the Cutting upon any supposton which in
light OF the facts possible Is advised hasty aud
entirely indeiensible. n assume that the seconu
arrest OF Cutting IN one Of the Mexican States followed
By MS detention trial. conviction and sentence, was
based upon his circulation IN such State OF TIE libel
citizen thereof. which originally published
by him in Texas then Secretary Bayard has committed
elunder in imperatvely demanding his release
by the Mexican Government with an mr lied CO OF
host es IN the event OF noncompliance. 1t is well
settled principle OF law that criminal libel Ia committed
where circulated and by the act Of thus circulating
il. well as in the place OF original publication aud
that the Offending party within the Jurisdiction
operates In the place OF such circulation he may
thus he held answerabe for The ofence This principle
dsposes OF the case Of Cutting. puts Secretary
Bayarl In the wrong in demanding his release provided
that the Mexican authorities simply dealt with him
circulating in Mexican State q libel originally pub
lished by him in Texas.
If. however their authorities based their action upon
the publication of tho libel in Texas,
circula ion In Mexico, then questions arise. The
first whether there Is local In tue Mexican
State for such criminal procedure That there is such
law is conceded on ali bands; and, hence according TO
this Law. che court had Jurisdiction deal with Cutting.
coming withih the same for act done in reras.
Inc Other OVERWHELMINGLY whetDer TINS local
in Mexico Is consistent with the general principles OF
international awis not to be determined by the policy
United states this subject by the opinion Of
Secretary Bayard but by the general civil
lied nations relating to the matter There such
sensus and never has been, that offence he tried
and punished only In the country In which act
ualy committed. and. hence that Cutting could not.
without n'racion OF his rshts American citi
zen be held. tried and punished In Mexico FOR an act
done in Texas IL found thereafter within MEXICAN jurs
The local Laws OF France. Belgium. ITALY. and
think also OF Germany assert tho rights In tho cir
and punish certain offences committed beyond their
spectve territories provided the custody OF the offend
Ing parties snail oe lawfully obtaned and III this re-
spect these nations stand the principle adoI ted In
the local law OF Mexico. This settles the question that
thete recognized doctrine ~ international law al
10. and violated by the position of Mckee, even
Cutting TO have been there arrested and tried
for what he did in Texas.
Secretary Bayard upon either OF the two supposons
OF which the admits is altogether too last aud
precipate. II not too dictatorial In his demand upon
the Law OF nations by edict. or FOR the United
STATES do and then enforce the law thus estsb
lshed foreign government. and demand that. at
the peril OF war; IL shall omit 10 execute its own local
law, such law inconsistent with international
law Secretary Bayard thinks Is, ought to he and
he means that 1t shall I've In The Cutting case The
people OF t1e United States want buster on thus snb
lcct. aud attempt to brOw-heat eXico; and they
want and occasion for ii in the facts 81
this var, the sequel OF this case. would he a
shocking crminality. SAMUEL l. SIEAII
M,