National Republican., 1886-09-17
THE CASE OF A. K. CUTTING.
VIEWS OF THE MEXICAN GOVERNMENT
IN RELATION TO 1T.
Notes OF Senior RIariscaI, Secretary of
Foreign ATairs-Hls Understanding
OF the Question of Jurisdiction-Not
Strange That Lawyers Differ.

The following communications give to the
public for the first time the view taken by
the Mexican officials OF tho Cutting case,
and upon which the action OF that govern
ment was based;
DEPARTMEsT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF MEX.
ICo, BUREAU OF AMERICA, No 9T7-MENICo,
Aug. 10 1861 have read with care your note
NO. $50, dated on the 2lth ultimo, In which you
report to me an interview which you
had the day before with Secretary Bayard
about the case of A. X. Cutting You state
that IN that interview you only had informa.
in the newspapers OF tho United States, and
rome cablegrams from me which contained no
details. In fact, as there had been no time to
inform you of the correspondence exchanged
on this subject with the United States legation
In this capital, IL was not possible TO give you
details q, f Of what occurred before the Judge At
obtained full account of said proceedings
until now, when the decision has been prO-
nounced, and this decision togeth1er win sew
the subject, you Will find published In the OIL
ciRl paper of this date. II has seemed to us
Desirable to make this publication in order TO
satisfy the anxiety Of the Mexican people, aud
especially as the Correspondence on the sub.
feet has been published in the United states.
in the decision of the court you will see how
incorrect was some of the information Of Mr..
Bayard-information without doubt contrary
10 the truth-which he had received from ex-
cited parties. Among some incorrect ailirma-
tions are, for Instance, the one that the trial
began by the action Of the courts, aud not by
complaint of an interested party, while the fact
lB that II was commenced and continued by
the formal complaint Of the offended party;
and the one that the court would not
allow Cutting to appoint lawyer, when,
I'm fact, he appointed those that he pleased, and
when two OF them declined and he refused TO
appoint another the court appointed one for
him. AS TO the complaints that ho was ILL
iishcd kilograms that he was treated as we'll ns
possible, and far better than the other prison.
efe.
In regard to the question Of jurisdiction, or
tho authority of the Mexican judge at FL
Pnso del Norte TO try Cutting, 1t may bo stated
that at least in his second libel, he committed
n misdemeanor In Texas that Is, in foreign
land. As TO this, consider 1t necessary to
make some remarks. This point attracted the
attention Of Consul Brigham, residing at I'll
Paso del Norte, and undoubtedly Secretary
Bayard has had It In view in considering Cut
iings arrest illegal. ] may remark here that,
although the United States consul might con-
ought not TO have advised the prisoner 70 refuse
TO give his affidavit and defend himself, which
advice he is said to have given. That was ad-
ylslng him to show dlsrespect and resistance TO
The judicial power He had no reason, either,
to complain Immediately to his government,
causing in this way such great excitement and
alarm He ought in such n case to have ad-
vised Cutting TO state to the court that they had
no Jurisdiction over him, and request them to
give him the opportunity to sustain this view,
as the court had undoubtedly Jurisdiction to
decide this point, for every Judge has jurisdlc.
tiCn to decide whether he can try case that
is before him. Had the Judge decided that the
court had Jurisdiction, Mr.. Cutting could have
appealed from that decision and when all
legal means had been exhausted and n deciS.
ion against the views OF the United States con.
sui at Ell paso del Norte had been rendered,
then he could havo reasonably thought that
there was a clear Injustice.
Coming back to the question about the iuris-
determined by law, crimes committed in foreigp
countries, II Is not surprising that there should
be difference OF opinion between lawyers and
other competent persons in the United States
and in Mexico, where the provisions of the
civil code of the federal district, which is also
In force in the state OF Chichuahua, have pre-
which, before It was decided by the court was
enc of International law, Is In conformity with
the principles accepted In the majority OF civ.
ilized nations who have adopted the system of
Roman jurisprudence, in contradistinction to
the common law of England. This is recog
nized by an American author, Wheaton, in the
following words:
"Dy the common law ofEngland, W hich has
been adopted in thisp point in the United States.
criminal oiienses are considered altogether
local. and are justiiia6le only by the courts Of
that country where the oiiense is committed
But this principle Is peculiar to the jurisprud-
ence OF Great Britain and the United States
and even In these two countries 1t has ire
auently been disregarded by the positive legls-
intion Of each" q (Danas Wheaton, lI3.)
It will thus be seen that the theory that
crimes cannot be punished except in the
country WneTe Iney were IN uOL tll-
mitted by the generality OF nations, and only
applies to the jurisprudence OF the Anglo
Eaxon countries, where, notwithstanding its
adoption, 1t is sometimes dsregarded in the
written law. This Is referred to by al English
author, Phillimore, who remarks that the doc
trine Of the common law is subject 10 cou-
Of frontier towns. phil, international Law
vol. 4, sec. 1857 The Inconvenience for towns
located on the frontier is seen at once, consist
ing in the facility to cross TO commit oiienses
In foreign nation which can be instantly
abandoned, and a return had TO the former
country iDEnediately afterward. making q
mockeTy oil the injured party as well as OF ma
tional Justice. This would be the result to III
five should declare our courts without jurls
dicton to try crimes committed in the adJoin'
ing nation against our country or our citizens
The two authors above cited confirm the
prepondnrence which exists In the opinions oi
the law favorable to an oxtra-territorial luris
specified crimes; and, although they refer only
TO such crimes MS are committed outside of thu
country by Its own citizens, Philllmore states
that in French legislation 1--WE shall see here
after that this provision exists also in the legs
lntlon of other countries) foreigner who i
found in the country after having committed
in certain cases against one of its subjects, Il
punishable. The punishment of a foreigner IL
that case depends upon the principle which
may have been adopted concerning the juris
diction in general for certain crimes committed
abroad. 1t does not appear Just to punish tht
citizen for such crimes and to leave an alien
under the same circumstances, without pun.
ishment. Such Is the judgment of Dana, the
Gnnotator of Wheaton, who says:
.'The question whether u state shall punish
foreigner found within Its limits for crime
previously committed abroad against that state
or It's subjects also depends upon its system re-
tpeGtpg furnishing generaiy Tor crimes ir CON CON
States, respecting strictly the principle Of thu
teIritorialily OF crime, leave them unpublished
lis own 'T subjects 'v UNDER like circumstances s
Dana's Wheaton, Sth edit, note n, 1907
Since we have accepted the system Of pun
foreign countries, evenin cases against foreign
eTs, II was natural that we should establish thu
punishment of foreigners who in foreign coun
SaSa hopa fEmGs ed sSa SSs
iablished by the Penal Code, which is in force
so far as this provision In concerned, embrac
ing articles 1Si TO lS9. In the edition of sale
Code made by a. Mediuay Armaeohea, esq,
note thereto reads as follows; "The committe,
made careful study of this subject, aud 1t de
cided to adopt the principles generally &C
cepted, which are contained in the above
mentioned articles, from lSi TO lS9. The com
mittee did not ignore the fact that England
and the United states only punish crime com
mitted within their own territory, but the,
thought II more convenient and just to punisl
crimes committed In foreign countries agains
the republic and those committed there b!
Mexicans against Mexicans or foreigners, o
such as are committed by foreigners agains
Mexlcans, as iu such cases the general ,prinei
pie Is fully carried out, on which the right Il
punish is based, namely, Justice united will
convenience.
Even in the United States the practice of no
Furnishing crimes committed abroad Is not s.
constant and uniform as might be thought
We have already seen that, according e
Wheaton this principle is onen overlooked IL
legislation. The learned jurist Edward Liv
inpslOn, proposed for the Penal Code of Lou
tsiana this provision:
''Citlzens or inhabitants of tho state may b
punished Tor dcisCt HlRitted out QJthG limits hCrGO
In those cases In which there is u special pro
vision of law declaring that the act forbidden
Ehall be an OiIcnse although dono out OF tn
state, Uivingston's Works, vol. 2, sec, 49,
7 ali tI,aN "a, al