St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1886-12-07
RELATIONS WITH MEXICO.
The Need of a New Treaty--The
Cutting Case.

The encouraging development or Deredclal
and intimate relations between the United
States and Mexico, which has been so marked
within the past few years, is at once the occa-
sion of congratulation and of friendly solicit
tude. urgently renew my former representa-
ton of the need of speedy legislation by con-
greSs to carry into effect the reciprocity COM
! merciaI convention of Jan. 20, 1888. Our
! commercial treaty of 1881 with Mexico was
/ terminated according to its provisions, in
1851, upon notification given by Mexico in
pursuance of her announced policy of recast-
| ing all her commercial treaties. Mexico has
! since concluded with several foreign govern
/ meuts new treaties of commerce and naviga-
| ton defining alien rights of trade. property
| and residence, treatment Of sh pp;ng, con-
| suar privileges and the like. Our yet unex-
ecuted reciprocity convention of 1888 covers
! none of these points, the settlement OF which
! is necessary to good relationship. L propose
/ to initiate with Mexico NEGOTIATIONS for new
and enlarged treaty of commerce and naviga-
| ton. In compliance with a resolution of the
senate communicated to that body on Aug.
! 2, last, and also to the house of representa-
tives, the correspondence in the case of A.
| K. Cutting,
| AN AMERICAN CITIZEN,
| then imprisoned in Mexico charged with the
/ commission of q penal offense in Texas, of
| which u Mexican citizen was the object.
| After demand had been made for his release
| the charge against him was amended so as to
| Mexican territory. This joinder of alleged
| offences, one within and the other exterior to
Mexico, induced me to order special investi-
| CATION of the case pending when Mr.. Cutting
was released. The incident has. however,
! disclosed claim of jurisdiction by Mexico
! novel in our history, whereby any Ofense
| committed anywhere and of which Mexican
! is the object, ma, if the offender be found
! in Mexico, be there tried and punished in
! conformity to Mexican laws. Jurisdiction
1 - Afnx VIM in fnel
! Cutting case and approved by the executive
] branch of the government Upon the author
| ity of Mexican statutes the appellate court
| in releasing Mr.. Cutting decided that the
! abandonment of the complaint by the Next
! can citizen aggrieved by the alleged crime
/ Ga libelous publication), removed the basis of
| further prosecution and also declared
JUSTICE TO HAVE BEEN SATI SIZED
| by the enforcement of small part of the
| original sentence. The admission of such
/ pretenSion would be attended with serious re-
suits invasive of the jurisdiction of this gov
! eminent and highly dangerous to our citizens
/ in foreign lands. Therefore, have denied it,
| and protested against IFS attempted exercise
/ as unwarranted by the principles of law and
! in ernational usages. a sovereign has JurlS-
1 dicuion of oifenSeS which take effect within
! mis- territory, although concerted or COM
menced outside OF il; but the right is denied
of any foreign sovereign to punish q citizen
! of the United States for an ofense committed
/ on our soil, even though the OfenSe be
against subject or citizen of such sovereign.
: The MeXlcan statute in question makes the
claim boldly, and the principle, it conceded,
would create dual responsibility in the citi-
| zen and lead to confusion of that certainty IN
| Law which is an essential of liberty. When
| citizens of the United States voluntarily 90
| into foreign country they must abide by the
! laws there in force, and will not be protected
! b, their own government from the couse-
/ QuenceS OF an offense against those laws
committed in such foreign country. But the
I wdtchful care and interest of this govern
/ ment over its citizens are not relin2nished
! because they have gone abroad, and ii ch ,rged
I with crime committed in the foreign land a
/ fair and open trial, conducted with decent
/ regard for justice aud humanity will be de-
nanded for them. With less than that this
government
WILL NOT BE CONTENT
when the life or liberty of its citizens is at
stake whatever the degree TO which the eX-
tension of criminal jurisdiction may have
! been formerly allowed by consent aud recip-
! rocal agreement allowed by consent and re-
! ciprocal agreement among certain of the
European states. No such doctrine or prac-
! tice was ever known TO the laws of this coun-
try, or of that from which our institutions
have mainly been derived. In the case OF
Mexico there are reasons especially strong
for perfect harmony in the mutual exercises
OF jurisdiction. Nature has made US irreYo-
I cably neighbors, and wisdom and kind feeling
should make US friends. The overflow of
capital aad enterprise from these United
States is potent factor in assisting the de-
I velopuent of the resources of Mexico and in
building up the property in both countries.
! To assist this good work all grounds of appre-
hension for the security of person aud prop
I erty should be removed, and trust that in
the interests of good neigh borhood the statute
referred to will ne so modified Ms TO prevent
possibilities OF danger to the peace OF the two
/ countries.