Sacramento daily record-union. [volume] (Sacramento [Calif.]) 1875-1891, 1886-09-29
A VERY IMPORTANT AND INTER
ESTING QUESTION.

Our evening contemporary, the Sta, in
a long and labored review of an article in
the REcoRD-UNIoN of Saturday last on
the Cutting case, takes exception to our
statement that Mr.. Bayard has egregiously
Numbered in declaring that he should in
sist on the %abrogation by Mexico of that
clause Of its Penal Code providing for the
punishment of offenders against its laws for
crimes operative in Mexico, in certain cases
when taken on Mexican soil, though the
0 .ender is alien to Mexico, and though the
offense is committed on other soil, provided
the same ofense is recognizable in the
country of its commission.
We alleged hat before Mr. Bayard can
insist upon any such a demand, he must
first explain to Mexico how it is that GER
tain States in the United States can keep
similar laws upon their statute books.
That is to say, we cannotdemand of Mexico
hat to which we do not ourselves conform.
We cited the fact that such laws exist in
seven European nations, and are recog-
nized as not opposed to international prin-
ciples Of law. That such laws have Vi
tally in New York and Texas, and, more
over, that the Federal Government has
itself recognized and approved such laws.
In proof, we cited Articles Asa and sos,
Penal Code of Texas, and like provisions
in the Penal Code of New York.
To all this the Star replies, in what
amounts to a lawyers brief, that Wharton
holds that jurisdiction belongs exclusively
to the place Of the commission of the Of
Tense; that Story enunciates the same doc
trine, as do other eminent commentator
and Judges of Courts. Liberal quotation
is made from Kent's Commentaries rela-
tive to the surrender of fugitives from JUS
tice, and to show that the law is that
4 guilty one "can be punished only by the
jurisdiction whose laws have been VIC
lated" Also, that at common law crimes
are local and punishable only in the coun-
try where committed. Finally, the case of
Holmes vs.. Jennison, as cited by us, is de-
clared to be inapplicable, because it was
4 case of an attempted surrender by the
Governor of Vermont to Canada of one
charged with murder committed in Can
ada-but the surrender was denied by the
Courts.
This is a fair synopsis of the position
taken in answer to our charge, and we
submit that it is no answer. The essential
points we made are evaded and miscon-
strued. We repeat that the administra-
ton has made an ~eggregious blunder in
the Cutting case, and that the nation has
been Inundated by the ignorance of Mr..
Bayard, to say nothing of the drunkenness
OF special envoy Mr.. Sedgwick. The Cut
ting case was not one involving questions
that arise under demand for %extradition.
Like its more eminent partisan chief,
the Star blunders in this respect also. We
repeat, that so long as the State of Texas
and the State of New York are permit
ted to punish offenders in certain cases
where the conspiracy to offend was entered
into without those States, but operative in
them, and to punish offenders for commit
ting certain offenses out of the State
which do not in their commission require
a personal presence in the State, we can
not with good grace object to precisely the
same being done by Mexico. We repeat,
if A. E. starts a factory for the manufaet-
ure of bogus coin after that of the United
States. lust over the Mexican line, and cir
culates or procures it to be circulated and
uttered in the United States, and We catch
the aforesaid A. B. on this side Of the line
be he Mexican or American, he will be
punished on our soil, and that if his alien
shin is 10 save him, then there may
as well be an end to all law to pun
ISL for such crime at all. Willour eotemPo-
rary have the temerity to deny the propo-
sition. Yet it is on all tours with the
case of Cutting. The laundering Of our
contemporary is in miseonceiving what
amounts to q +" commission . of certain acts
Thus. in this special case, the mere setting
Of the libel by Cutting, in type, in Texas
was no crime cognizable By the laws Of
Mexico. Bat when he circulated it, it be
came a crime, and when it operated in
Mexico it became e commission " in Mex
leo. II was the case Of a crime conceived