Wood River times. [volume] (Hailey, Idaho) 1882-1915, 1886-08-06
THE CUTTING CASE.

The TINES places before its read
ers, that they may know the facts, a
succinct statement of the Cutting
case that has created such disturb
ance at Ell Paso, Texas, aud Paso del
Norte, in Mexico.
Cutting was editor of paper in
the Mexican town. A Mexican
Medina--issued and circulated pros
pectus stating that he proposed to
publish newspaper. Cutting seeing
a rival about to enter the field wrote
and published in his paper scurrilous
and abusive article, calling Medina a
fraud, etc. For this, which was a
criminal act under the law, Cutting
was arrested and taken before a Mex
lean court for trial. He was found
guilty, but the Judge showed de.
cided disposition to be lenient to him
and told him if he would prepare a
retraction and apology and publish it
as publicly as he had the abusive and
libellous article he should be released
and go free. Cutting agreed to this,
and next day published II sort of half
apology and half no apology. This
was accepted, however, as satisfactory.
Meartime Cutting prepared aud had
published in paper in Ell Paso, TIE xas,
Oust across the narrow Rio Grande),
card repudiating his retraction and
apology and denouncing the Mexican
Medina, closing with a challenge to
give satisfaction in any manner and
at any place. This was published in an
American paper by Cutting, who was
resident in Mexico. For this act he
was arrested and thrown into Jail,
where he Yves up to few days ago.
1t appears that upon the trial the claim
that the Mexican court had no juris-
diction, which Cutting entered, fell to
the ground, because the prosecution
cited, in support of the jurisdiction,
this law:
Article CLXXXVI, Title 5, Chap
ter 1-Crimes committed in foreign
country by Mexican against a Mex
lean, or by foreigner against Mex
lean, shall be punished in the republic
according to law, if there appear any
OF the following circumstances:
First-That the accused be found
in the republic, either by having come
BY his own free will or brought by
extradition.
Second-Thatif the person offended
is foreigner complaint be made
against him by the proper party.
Third-That the accused has not
been definitely tried in the country
where the offense was committed, anl
If be has he has not been released,
absolved or pardoned.
Fourth That the offense he is
charged with be considered by him
as an offense punishable in the coun-
try where it was committed, and also
in the republic.
Upon such state of affairs it be-
came necessary to refer the matter to
the State Department at Washington,
and the case became one of inter
national character.
Practically up to the night of Au-
gust Sd, nothing had been done. Mex
leo refused to give Cutting up when
demanded by the United States Gov
eminent, and gave the above quoted
Mexican law as reason for that refusal.
A resolution was adopted by the lower
house of the American Congress ask.
ing Cleveland for all the correspond
ence had with Mexico in the case.
This was given, showing the above
mentioned refusal to deliver Cutting.
A Texas Congressman went before
the Foreign Affairs Committee and
secured the passage of resolution
requesting the President to repeat his
demand for Cuttings release. That
resolution probably passed Congress
August 4th, and so at present the case
stands. If, when this second demand
for his release reaches the Mexican
Government, it shall he refused again,
nothing will be left, in honor, for the
u. S. Government but to withdraw
lis Minister, suspend all friendly rela
tons and fight.