The Superior times. [volume] (Superior, Wis.) 1870-1912, 1886-12-18
THE CURING 4FFAFks.
IL Lesds 20 the Discovery OF Novel
Claim of JurIsdiction.

In compliance with resolution of the Senate
| communicated to that body on August - last,
and also TO the House OF Representatives, the
correspondence in the case of A. X. Cutting, an
American citizen, then imprisoned in Mexico.
cha ged with the commission OF g penal Otfense
in Texas, of which a Mex can citizen was the
object. After demand had been made for his re
lease the charge against him was amended so as
70 Include violation of Mexican law within
Mexican territory. This joinder of al
!, ged Ofenses, one within and the other
exterior TO Mexico, induced me to orders special
investigation of the case, pending hich Mr.. Cut
ting was released. The incident has however
disclosed a claim of jurisdiction by Mexico novel
in Our history whereby any offtnse committed
anywhere by foreigner, penal in the place OF
its commission, and Of which Mexican is the
OBJECT may II the offender be found in Mexico,
be their tried and punished in conformity with
AeXIcaIl law. Jurisdiction was sustained by the
courts OF Mexico in the Cutting case and approved
by the executive branch OF that government
upon the authority OF Mexican tttute. The
appellate court in releasing Mr.. Cutting decided
that the abandonment OF the complaint by Mexi-
can cluZsuS agg1eYed by the alleged crime IA
EbslouS publCatlon) removed the basis of
further prosecution, auC also declared Justice TO
have been satisfied by the enforcement Of small
part OF or g1nal sentence. The admission OF such
g pretenslOn would be attended with serious
results lLyaslye OF the luri>dictiOn Of this
government aud highly dangerous to
our citizens IN foreign | ndS Therefore I have
denied 1t, and protested inst its att mpted ex
ercise - unwaITanted. By the principles of law
az d international usages sovereign has iuris-
erritU-y. although concerted or commenced out
side OF il. but the right il denied o! any foreign
sovereign TO punish q citizen of the United
states tor an Ohen,e COusummated on our soil in
violation OF our laws, even though the ohense be
against a sube or citizen OF such SOW
ereign. The Mexican statute in question
makes the claim broadly, and the princi pie
II conceded would create a dual responsibility in
the citizen and lead to a cOnusIou destructive Cf
that certainty in the law which IS an essential of
nbetty, When citizens OF the United States vol
unfairly go into q foreign country they must
abide by the laws there in force and " III not be
protected by their own government rom the con-
sequences of otfense against those laws com
nitted in such foreign country. But watChtuI care
ana interest OF this government over citizens are
not reGnquished because they have gone abroad:
and il charged with crime committed in the
foreign land, fair and open trial conducted
with decent regard Tor justice and humanity, viii
be demanded tor them. With less than that This
ty of It, citizens Is at stake Whatever the degree
TO which extra territorial criminal jurisdiction
may have been formerly allowed by consent and
reciprocal agreement among certain of the
European poH eTs. no such doctrine or practice
ever known 70 the laws of this Coun-
tiOns have mainly been deriye1. In the
case OF Mexico there are reasons especially
strong for perfect harmony in the mutual exer-
C. sc OF Jurisdiction. Nature has made US irTeT-
ocabiy neighbOrs, and wisdom and kind feel
iugs should make friends. The overflow OF
capital and enterprise from the United States is
potent factor in assisting the development of the
resources OF Mexico ana in building up the prOp-
erty of both countries To assist this good WORK
all grounds OF apprehension tor the security of
person and property should be removed, and
triIst that IL the Interests Cf good neighbOrhoOd
the statute referred TO viii be 20 modified as to
eliminate present possibilities Of danger to the
peace OF the two countries.