Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-09-25

luIp SOClStN vi GISHSS PuollS
the fact that it did both is the only real
annoyance and Importance in the matter.
THE LAUNDERING OF THE ADMIN
IsTRATION.
The more the Cutting case is examined
the more the laundering of Mr.. Bayard
becomes apparent. For instance, under a
section of the Penal Code of Mexico GER
tain ohenses against the inhabitants or the
! sovereignty of Mexico, though committed
without that country, are punishable
within it if the offender is found upon
| Mexican soil, when the same ofiense is also
recognized in the country where the crime
is committed. Mr.. Bayard in the Cutting
case declared that this Government would
insist upon the repeal of that law by Mex
leo, or its abandonment 50 far as IT relates
to the United States. 1t is said that Mr..
Bayard based this claim upon the state
ment that such a law is obnoxious to sys-
tens of civilization, and that nowhere else
is any such penal declaration made. No
other presumption can be entertained than
that the Honorable Secretary of State
knows the law. 1t must be assumed that
he has full knowledge of the laws of ma
tions, and at least that he makes 10 asser-
ton regarding the laws Of our W land
without being fortified for the maintenance
Of this position.
But Mr.. Bayard has been put fatty to
the proof, and forced to the confession of
his ignorance by the country lawyers of
| Mexico, who reply and prove that other
| civilized nations have similar laws. More
than this, judicial decisions are thrown
into. his face maintaining the constitu-
tionality of these exterritoiial jurisdic-
| tional laws. These laws do not claim
Jurisdiction for the Courts of a country
beyond its bounds, but do claim jurisdic-
| ton of the offender when he comes within
the territory of the nation. Such laws
exist in Belgium, France, Italy, Austria,
Bohemia, Prussia and Norway. The Penal
Code of Texas provides that if a person
commits certain %ofenses out of the State,
which do not in their commission require
a personal presence in the State, he may be
| indicted and convicted in the State. And
the section adds: THE object of this Act
being to reach and punish all persons of
Tending against its provisions, whether
within or without the State" Still another
section of the same Act provides that one
may be punished in Texas for a con-
s~piracy to commit murder, arson, robbery,
burglary, rape, theft or forgery, within the
State, where the conspiracy was entered
into in another State or territory, precisely
as if entered into within the confines of
Texas. art. 454, sos Criminal Code,
Tex
By the Penal Code of New York it is
provided that if enc commits an act with
out that State which affects persons, prop
erty, public health, morals or decency
within the State, he may be punished
therefor by the State, if the act would be 4
crime were it committed within the State.
The Supreme Court Of the United States,
in commenting upon such laws of States,
in the case of Holmes VS.. Jennison IA
Peters Rep, said that the States may,
if they think proper, in order to deter
offenders from other countries from coming
among them, make crime committed else
where punishable in their Courts if the
guilty party should be found within their
jurisdiction. In all these cases the State
acts with Il view to its W safety, and is
in no degree connected with the foreign
government III which the crime was COM
mitted.'
It affords the Chicago Times intense
satisfaction to quote from a number of
cases and commentators at length sup
porting these statutes as wise and sound,
on the stable ground that the place of the
commission Of the ofense is the place in
which it operates. Thus, it is shown that
DIR. Wharton, in his celebrated treatise,
answers the question, "Can a State punish
aliens for ofienses committed against it
abroad ," aflirmatively, and that the
United States claims jurisdiction before
Consular Courts in the case of certain
~offenses by aliens. The same writer adds
that there remains no serious doubt that
an alien abroad who plans the violation OF
the laws of a State, is amenable to the
laws of that State if arrested on its soil
after the commission of the act. An entire
chapter is devoted by Wharton to the
fertilization of this view, and the proof
that it is a settled rule Of the criminal
policy of the laws of our own country, and
TO show that persons, not citizens, are in.
tended to be embraced by this policy.
The case is cited by the Times of 4 per
son who might set up a counterfeit coir
mandatory in Mexico to issue spuriou.
coin represented to be genuine coin of the
United States, and who should procure thu
same to be circulated in the United States
Clearly, such an offender, if found upol
our soil, can be arrested, tried and con
vieted for the act, though he has not per
s~onally put forth the coin upon our soil
but has procured others-partners an'
eonfederates-to do so, and though he j
an alien.
There is nothing for it but the abandon
ment of its claim by the Democratic Ad