The Ohio Democrat. (Logan, O. [Ohio]) 1886-1906, 1886-08-14

dDuIiuahce vi supplies unu TO spare
in this country. There are more
men who are aching to enlist than
would he required. The ordnance
is rusting for use as are the sabres
and the muskets. The international
question between the United States
and Mexico involves principle OF
much greater magnitude than that
In dispute between this country
and England in the war of 1872
England's claim, "once u British
subject always British subject"
1t never attempted to enforce with
in what 1t acknowledged as Amer
can jurisdiction. The American
flag and American sovereignty
were respected at least to that ex-
tent that no claim was made to the
right to search government ships
for British subjects. England
claimed jurisdiction over it's own
subjects, but never attempted to
assert it against the American SOW
ereignty.
This attempt is now being made
by Mexico in it's claim that it has
jurisdiction over certain class of
offences committed any where in
the United States. The claim has
no other basis than the following
law of the State of Chihuahua,
which President Diaz and his am
bilious father-in-law, Rubio, are at
tempting to enforce as the law of
nations valid for the United States
and the world.
Article 1856, title w., Chapter 1.
Crimes committed in IA foreign
country by Mexican against
Mexican, or by a foreigner against
Il Mexican, shall be punished in the
republic according to law, if there
appear any of the following circum-
stances:
I. That the accused be found in
the republic, either by having come
Of his own free will or brought by
2. That if the person offending is
a foreigner, complaint may be made
against him by the proper party.
3. That the accused has not been;|
definitely tried in the country
where the offence was committed;
md, if so, that he has not been re-
eased, absolved or pardoned.
4. That the offence he is charged
With be an offence punishable in
he country where it was commit
ed, and also in the republic.
5. That, in accordance with the
avs eXtant, the penalty imposed
would not allow bail.
The position taken by Secretary
'ayard shows his clear insight and
ppreciation of the gravity of
he case. He takes no cogni-
ance of the laws of Chihua-
lua, and it would be manifestly H.
urd for him to do so, though the
statute is the sole found
tion of MeXico's claim to jurisdic-
ion.
There can be no palmer principle
f national right and international
aw than that the laws of a nation
an only apply to offences commit
ed within its borders or within it's
roper jurisdiction. If an Ameri-
an in Mexico violates Mexican
avs, he is plainly amenable to
Mexican punishment, and just as
'lainly, Mexico has no right to hold
Tim amenable for any offence COM
nitted within the territory of an
'ther nation, even if the other
alton neglects, or refuses to intiict |:
where it is merited..
n the case of Cutting, for instance,
ad the Mexican government
laimed that it had a right to try
i'm for the offence of uttering
bel in crossing over to Mexico and
istributing what he had printed
n the United States, it's position
you'd have been inexpugnable.
instead, it holds him for the publi-
alton in Texas, and demands that
he United States acknowledge the
aw of Chihuahua as applicable to
itizens of the United States, re-
of the fact that it is a law
lade with whose government and
aw-making processes they have
othing to do.
Had Secretary Bayard taken any
ther stand or had he failed to ap-
reciate the Importance of the
uestiOn and the magnitude of the
'sue precipitated by seemingly
rival incident, the effect would
ave been at once apparent, In
eed, the case of Rasures indicates
ne results to be expected.
In the United States the cons IT,
ltion is the supreme law. 1t can