The Wilmingtonian., 1886-08-21
THE CUTTING CASE.

understanding ot the cutting case. Ii It's
assertions be true it furnishes closed argu-
ment in the matter and leaves Secretary Bay.
ard without ground to stand upon in his i'm
petuous demand upon Mexico.
The Press says The full text OF the de-
cisiou of Judge Zubia, as published in the
official organ of the Mexican Government,
shows that Cutting was adjudged guilty Of
the original libel published in Mexico, the
concliaton having been nullifled by his
failure to comply with tho conditions also
that he was found guilty Of repeating the
libel in aggravated form in Texas and circn-
lating the same in Mexico. Copies of the
Ell Paso Herald, the Texas paper in which
the second libel was published, were found
on Cuttings premises in Mexico. Whether
or not it was in evidence that Cutting per-
sonally circulated the second libel in Texas,
the'Court seemed to have assumed that he
did. and to have based its Judgment against
him on that fact. The more that is known
about the Mexican side of this ease the less
ground does there seem to be for questioning
the jurisdiction of the Mexican Court,
1t appears by the above that Cutting was
in regular legal course condemned for libel
perpetrated in Mexico. He was left go on
promise of coed behavior under a legal ar
rangement called "a concliaton," He
transgressed this "conciliation" in Texas,
but also in Mexico In FL Paso (rexas) he
re-published the libel, and copies of it were
subsequently found with him in his domicile
in Mexico. 1t was taken for granted by the
Mexican judge, in hypothesis not far
stretched, that he Texan editor who pub
fishes certain matter in neighboring count
ry which happens to be identical with an
adjudged libel previously published in Mex.
leo is not without guilt or liability when, on
crossing the border line copies of this second
libel are found in his, Cuttings, possession.
thus fatty upsctting the conditions upon
which his previous enlargement from prison
was granted iu fact repeating the libe', tie
whoe Logical phase Of the matter aitording
also circumstantal proof Of the allegation
that Cutting WAS personally resp ,nsible for
tho nipauin tio, AZ tha Saann1 libal
The Mexican judge however imprisoned
Cutting upon the bas of first libel alol Ii s
(Cutting's) second libel affording sufficient
protest that the conciliat;on or compact upon
which was based his being set free had not
been fulfilled by Cutting.
Cutting broke the conditions in the bar
gain and is therefore responsible accord.
ing to the NIexicauJ ,dge zubia for the orig
inal offence for which he is now held.
The whole trouble seems to be that S,rrc-
tary Bayard too quickly took it for granted
that the Mexican authorities had imprisoned
Cutting the second time for the libel pub.
lished in Texas-which is not the case.
The following, from the New York Herald
affords some insight into the case, SO far as
Mexican jurisdiction is concerned.
Cutting, the authorities of Chihuahua
claim has been regularly tried, convicted and
sentenced to prison at hard labor for one
year. Under the constitution of Mexico ht
must serve at least two-fifths of his sentence
before President Diaz can legally pardon
him. Two-tifths Of one year is 14G days.
He was sentenced August Z, and he must
remain in prison until January /, 1887. The
Mexican federal constitution does not inyest
the President with discretionary pardoning
power. On the contrary, it restricts him by
proving that pardon can only be granted ii
accordance with the law bearing upon the
case. This is to be found in section 2S7 OF the
Penal Code of the federal Distr ct of Mexico
which provldes-first, that a prisoner shal
have served wo.iifths of his sentence, and
that during the term of his Imprisonment h,
shall have preserved good conduct before
the President can legally pardon him. Now
article IS of the Mexican federal constitu
ton involves literally the section of the
Penal Code above cited,
1t is true that for good behavior, import
ant public service to the Republic, or wheI
it can be clearly shown that by reason o
the prisoners physical condition his place 0
confinement is fatal to his health, the Presi
dent may, within restricted legal bornds ex
ercisc the right Of pardon. But none Of th
considerations apply to Cuttings case. Eve
supposing for the sake of argument tina
the Mexican President, as n measure Of pull
lie policy, OF for other good and suiliceu
reason, in Difference, tor instance TO the we
known desire Of the United States shoul
wish to give Cutting his liberty, it cOul
not be lawfully done. The mmutable fat
remains, therefore, that since his convlctio
and sentence it is absolutely out of the pov
er of any higher tribunal, judicial or othe
wise, to interfere. President Didz is IoI 5i,