The daily morning oasis., 1919-12-07
INTERNATIONAL LAW VS.. LOCAL Law

oonv raaders Of 0The Oasis" who comprehend
IL Spanish much better than English we repro
duced the article on the Jenkins case by Mr. carlos
Felix Diaz editor of 'La Nacion" OF Nogales So
nora. giving the Mexican version OF the suoJect.
simultaneously with that publication there appeared
aUnited Press telegram which conveyed the mtor-
nation that Mr. Jenkins had been retesed.
This morning there appears Mexican News
Service telegram stating that the release was accom-
pshed by deposit of cash bail, for Mr. jenkins, by
an American citizen Mr.. ]. Sattler Nauser.
Whether that closes the incident remains to be
seen 1t does not appear that Mr.. Jenkins was
party to the bail transaction; and the whole thing
NAV have been complicated farther by some offici-
ous friend having done for Mr. Jenkins what he had
refused to do-give bail himself.
The article of Mr.. Diaz, reproduced yesterday
stated the case from the Mexican point OF view, VIZ
That Mr.. Jenkins had been arrested by local court
for alleged violation of local. state law. That
may all be very true. That is no part OF the case
of the United States. The contention OF the Amerl-
can government, as it is understood by "The Oasis"
is that under international law and the usage OF ma
: tons diplomatic and consular officers accredited
by one country to another are exempt from arrest
in the country to which they are accredited The
position of the United States is and has been (as
"The Oasis understands the CASEY that as its con-
suar representative Mr.. Jenkins is exempt from ar
rest and should not have been subject to arrest In
ternational law and usage should have prevailed
against local law.
Here in the United States such conditions have
occurred time and again. wherein local and even fed
eral laws have had to bend to obligations of the ma
ton under international law. "The Oasis" cannot
recall any wherein individual was involved, as IN
the Jenkins case; but it recalls several where prop
erty rights were involved wherein rights that had
accrued under the Gadsden treaty with Mexico pre-
vailed over the United States law relating to land
titles Several involved lands within twenty miles
of Nogales. The Sonota land grant is one of them.
Under the treaty of Guadalupe Hidago and the
Gadsden treaty the United States agreed to recog-
nize all valid grants of land made by the Mexican
government. 1t has so recognized such grants, and
it is alleged that some which not valid have re-
ceived recognition.
The Sonoita land grant was made to one San
tiago Ainsa before the Gadsden treaty negoti-
ated and ratified That grant entitled to recog-
milton under provisions of the treaty. But for vari
GUS reasons it did not receive such recognition by
virtue of judgment from the Court of Private
Land Claims until about 1897 In the meantime,
Don A. Sanford of Washington, D. c., who was in
the cattle business in Arizona, filed homestead on
the land, resided there the prescribed five years,
proved out and received patent The general land
office overlooked the land grant, and ignored it, CIV
ing patent under the United States land laws. One
would have thought that would suffice. But after
the land court had declared valid the Ainsa title,
derived from Mexico, and the Supreme Court OF the
United States had confirmed the decision of the land