Arizona silver belt., 1888-03-31
THE DURAN CASE.

DlStrlcG Court, recently ln sesSlon ID Tucson. It was conteuded that Duran did not commit the act charged upon hls own vclition, but in obedience to an order of his commanding officer, and Duran was discharged from ar rest upon that ground. A second case, of similar import, was ordered stricken from the docket. The Git izen contended that if an offence had been committed by Duran against the United States laws, the responsi- bihty rested upon the Republic of Mexico, whose soldier Duran was at the time of the commission of the of fence.
 The Citizen in alluding to the pris- oner's acquittal says:
 Rafael Duran, the Mexican soldier of whose standing before the law the Citizen discussed, in recent issue, has been tried on the first charge of his indictment and acquitted. Although the case was heard before a jury, Du- ran was practically acquitted by the judge, whose charge was to the effect that as the prisoner was acting under the orders of superior officer he was therefore practically irresponsible for said actions. A verdict of acquittal was rendered in accordance herewith and the untrIed charges against him nolle pressed. This was nothing more than simple act of justice to the man and his long imprisonment is to be re- gretted.
 If the Judge so instructed the jury he was either in error of the law or was averse to causing controversy between the Republic of Mexico and the United States, which the convlc- tion of Duran might have preeipita- ted. The question of obedience of an inferior to a superior officer is set at rest by Bishop, on criminal law. The rule as laid down renders the subordl- nate individually responsible for d criminal act done, though in pur- suance of an order of superior officer, or of parent to child, master to a servant or principal to his agent.
 El Fronterizo, from which paper the Citizen takes its cue, denies the right of the United States to imprlson Du- ran on the charge as cited, inasmuch as, at the time of Duran's violation of international law, he was a private soldier of the Republic of Mexico, and simply obeyed the order of his com manding officer, and refers to the ar- rest of Mcleod, an English soldier, who, in obedience to orders, was one of party, in 1887, who took posses sion of the steamer Caroline, an Amer ican vessel in American waters, fired her, cut her from her moorings and allowed her to drift over the falls oi Niagara.
 The cases of Mcleod and Duran, al. i though not dissimilar as to violation of international law, are nevertheless different in their legal aspects. The case of Mcleod had not yet assumed the condition which relieved it from the action of the President who, by Section 126 of crime and criminal pro- cedure, IS authorized to interfere in prosecutions upon consideration ot public policy as is likely to affect the domestic tranquility or foreign rela, tions of the United States, but that right Is never exercised after proceed ings are once begun against the ac cuSed. The prosecution of offenders is, by act of Congress of 1789, made the speclal duty of the district attor ney. After the case, as was Duran s becomes subject to judicial control O the court the President has no further power m the premises, except pardor after conviction.
 The guilt of Mcleod was never questioned and his release by the Pres ident was simply an act of public pol icy, Tn order to avoid an internationa complication. The act in releasing Mcleod was not generally approved Subsequently, Captain Marryat, of tn, of the English navy, a novelist of ac- knowledged merit, who, because of hl literary attainments, was wined anc dined by citizens of Louisville, Ken lucky, thOughtlessly proposed the toas ito the cutters-eut of the Caroline, which resulted in the instant aban donment of the festive board by those who had assembled to honor his pres enee, and from that moment he wa no longer the lion of the hour. Th' remainder of his stay in Louisville was abbreviated to a few short hours.
 The well known evangelical custom