National Republican., 1886-09-17

ttrmediate principle, which has been acceptod
by modern nations, as Fiore observes (Droit
Internal. Pflve, chapter b) considering the two
extremes. The circumstance to which ailude
Is the one expressed in our code that an in.
fraction OF law charged to the Mexican or for
cigncr must have the character of crime in the
country IN which II was committed and in
Mexico" (article 1856, section AZ
10 the American authorities, already quoted
TO sh9% l@t even n the United States ot
adopted the principle OF the common law this
point, as doctrine of public or international
Jaw, is sometimess questioned, must add what
slOIy tenches in his Conflict of Laws" chap
ter lG, especially what his annotator, Redheld,
says IN the sixth edition of said word, para.
graph 625b, referring to decision pronounced
self thus;
Although the penal laws of every country
are In their nature local, yet an oflenso may bo
the laws of another, and If the offender be
afterwards found in the latter state, he may be
punished according to the laws thereof, and
sovereignty Is no bar to the Indictment"
Now, our legislation, especially article 1856 of
our Penal Code, so far as relates TO the punish.
ment OF certain crimes by aliens outside of
the country, is In accordance not only with
the most authoritative doctrines of private in.
terpational laY-.Fmlix, Noet. Bmhmer, Mar
tens, saalfeld, and Fcrreira, 10 whom should
add Fiore, by his general thesis-but also with
the written law Of several countries, whion
deserve great respect In this matter, as France
ifcommitted against the nation; Prussia, where
all are punished In accordance with
the lay Of the country IN which they were
G,SSmmiltodi ,S Bavaria and Norway, where
without the conditions required by our code.
You will find this clearly shown by review
Of the case Of Cutting which has been pub.
lished by judge OF this city In the newspaper
~ IOro which inclOse TO you. II is therefore
clear that our legislators did not only exercise
the right they had to settle this point OF inter
proper as II is n matter subject to discussion,
but they accepted the method which has In It's
favor the largest number OF civilized nations,
with the system of Jurisprudence accepted In
our republic. take pains TO defend article
1S6 of our Penal Code, to which have called
cSns Case IN ot begsnus 70
sary 10 show rightful jurisdiction of the Mexi-
can courts in this case, since rs you have seen
fiIom the decision inclosed you as an annex to
this note, the crime committed by Cutting In
Texas can with reason be held, and has been
held, as continuation Of the crime committed
IN III Paso del ,Norte,. where ho afterwards
had published at FL Paso. II has not been my
object now to sustain the right which the court
That tried this case had to consider the .Jurls.
dict onal question, but 20 answer certain re-
marks Of high, respectability, coming
nom Secretary Bayard himself, against
our penal legislation. and to defend the
IFS laws might not be considered peculiar and
contrary to the principles Of public law. If our
laws are conformed to said principles asunder.
stood by many nations Il seems clear that the
inconvenience which their application in our
country might cause TO our nelghbors could by
10 means give force to an accusation against
Mexico. lf In Mexico the criminal proceed
ings are different from those prevailing in the
United States, and if II is possible that some
times the law in our country may punish what
is not punished In the United States, these are
evils, supposing that they deserve such name,
wh1ph MOuld
zen OF the United States coming to Mexico
after having done an Injury to this country or
one of our citizens lin the sense OF our aws) that
It would be suffered also by the alien who ar.
rves in our territory without such autecedent
circumstances unless he takes care, as he ought
TO do, TO understand the principal differences
betw the laws OF his own country, which he
knows, and the laws OF the country where he
comes to reside.
on the other hand the inconvenience which
the natural differences between the different
legislations may produce is not so grave be.
cause there must always be some similarity in
the main points Of legislation of both coun.
tries, so far as the rights granted to the accused
are concernedin Mexico aud the United States.
This similarity Is found in the legislation of
civilized nations, and II is greater If they are
governed by the same institutions As to dc.
lining OF certain deeds as crimes, there does
not seem To be very great diversity or opposi-
ton between the two countries, and in case
there should be any In the future no serious
inconvenience could result from IL to citizens
Of the United States, since article ls7 of our
Penal Code, which has given rise to the re-
mark, does not authorize, as has been stated,
punishment for a foreigners act occurring
abroad. except when said act has the character
OF an onense d, t'e country tOherc took ptd'C
aud IN hts republic. There are no marked diff
ferences between tho punishments which both
countries iniict for crimes. TO show this
Will state that In the case OF Cutting, for In
stance, the severest punishment which can be
inflicted In accordance with article GIG of our
| Penal Code is the same, with slight difference
| in the fine, which could be inflicted
ly article 6l7 of the code of Texas.
l belieNe that the remarks made by Mr. Bayard
| in his message to the United States Congress,
founded on the supposed Inconvenience which
have mentioned, and which he fears might
result from our legislation, were the result of
misinfo nation received by him.. am con
vinced of his high attainments and character,
which are shown IN the prudent course which
| he hos followed since being informed by my
letter TO Mr.. Jackson that Il was impossible
| for our government to order the immediate re-
| lease of Cutting. also regard as very sincere
his protests made to you on that occasion, of
| his friendly consideration toward Mexico.
| Sincere and deep is the regard we have for the
| government Of the United States, in whose
wisdom and business we have the greatest roa-
| son TO hope that. II at any time, through i'm
perfect information 1t may not perceive i'm
mediately the right which support US, it viii
| never refuse TO hear US, and when informed OF
the whole truth, II will do us full justice, recog-
| Dizing our disposition, through the sentiment
| and conviction OF mutual convenience, to con-
solidate the most cordial relations between the
|
| You are authorized to use this letter in the
way which your prudence and circumstances
| may dictate.
Ircnew 10 you my highest consideration.
| MARISCAL.
To the MINISTER OF MEXICO, Washington, D. c.
DEPARTMENT Of FOREIGN AFFAIRS. MEXICO
| Aug. 49, 1SS6.-Sir! In my note, No. 977, dated
| yesterday, stated that would send you au
article published by Judge of this capital
Joseph NJ. Gamboa, esq., on the Cutting case