Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1886-08-27
The Cutting Case.

The Mexican court bases its action in
releasing Mr.. Cutting upon the ground
that the plaintiff, Medina, in the suit
against Cutting, had withdrawn his nc
ton. The decree, after long preamble
rehearsing the history of the case-says:
Considering that the offended party,
Emglio Medina, has desisted from action,
to which he had a right, as against A. X
Cutting, and therefore, that the principal
motive of the proceedings does not exist,
there is not, in the judgment of this court
sufficient foundation to continue the case.
To continue proceedings on point legally
and accurately decided in the first in
stance would be not only To divest that
laudable proposition of its effect, but also
it would 90 beyond the intent claimed by
law and national decOrum therefore the
court decides in the name of justice that
the act of deslsting on the part of Emig
lilo Medina is granted, from the civil ac
ton to which he was entitled against A.
*. Cutting. who shall be placed immedi
ately in absolute liberty.
Washington advices report that Assist
ant Secretary of State Porter says that
Editor Cuttings release did not alter the
issue between the United States and Mex
leo. He thought, however, that the re-
lease would probably decrease the war
feeling in Texas. When asked in relation
to the question ofindemnity Mr. Porter said
that Mr.. Cutting would demand his $4,000
as matter of course. This will have to be
done through our state department. lfitis
thought right then the claim will be urged
but of course there is no necessity of Crap
ping with that question until the present
and more important ones have been dis
posed of. Another despatch says that
Cuttings release will not affect Mr.. Sedg-
wick's mission, which is to learn all the
facts in the case. The government does
not at present concern itself with any
question of damages due Mr.. Cutting, but
will use the information it may gather
through Mr.. Sedgwick in the furtherance
of negotiations for change of the Mex
lean laws in so far as they are held to
give right to try Americans for acts com
mitted within American territory. 1t is
admitted that the obnoxious law was at
the time Mexico declared her independ
ence a part of the French code, but it is
asserted that it has long since been abro-
gated or passed into disuse, and that such
claim would not now be assented to for
moment by the American government
whoever might set it up. There
are crimes such as conspiracies
to overthrow foreign governments
and the fitting out of filibustering eXpe
ditions, which if committed by Americans
upon American soil, would not only rem
der the criminal liable to arrest and pun
ishment here for a violation of our own
laws, but also if subsequently caught
within the jurisdiction of the offended
government liable to apprehension and
| trial according to the laws of that
power, without calling for other action
on the part of our government than the
effort to see that the accused man had a
fair trial. But offences against the per
sons or the interests of foreigners com
mitted upon American soil, either by
Americans or foreigners are, it is claimed,
within the sole and exclusive jurisdiction
of American courts, and to this doctrine
/ it is asserted all civilized governments eN-
cept Mexico assent. Mr.. Bayard does not
admit that any mistake has been made by
the department, in the matter; but he
will perhaps modify that opinion when all
/ facts are in.