Atlanta semi-weekly journal. (Atlanta, Ga.) 1898-1920, 1919-11-28
Full Text of
Mexican
Note

@'AC<AANO OA1JB awe wv
"Mr. George L. Summerlin, Act
ing Charge of Affairs for the
United States Of America:
IT am instructed by the prest-
dent of the republic to answer
herewith your note Of November
20, which you addressed to the
Mexican government on instruc-
lions from the state department
of the United States.
you will no doubt realize the
fact that no legal foundation
principle or precedent of inter-
national right. or even of rea-
son, Is invoked for the immedi-
ate liberation of Mr.. Jenkins,
who, as you know, is at present
under the jurisdiction Of a judge
Of the city Of 'Puebla.
1.-The Mexican government
cannot see what the foundation
for such demand might be.
It believes that 1t can be only
the power of the country that
makes 1t, although the United
States has expressed the desire
on various occasions that right
and justice should be the basis
of it's diplomacy, and respect for
weak countries the basis of it's
international relations on the
continent.
1.-THE terms Of a note which !
am answering are attributed by
my government to an imperfect
understanding Of our penal laws.
The Imprisonment is neither -un-
just nor arbitrary. as your note
states, since Mr.. Jenkins himself
has signed contradictory state
ments regarding the kidnapping
of which he was q victim. The
judge has had ample foundation
to suppose that he was guilty
of the crime of falsifXt1g judi
cia1 declaration, and this has
caused his Imprisonment.
Mexican Court Procedure
Nevertheless, this imprison-
ment does not of itself signify
that Mr.. Jenkins is guilty, be-
cause such a fact can only be
established bv a defnitive judg-
ment.
Your excellency knows that
the criminal proceedings in Mex
leo involves three classes of i'm
prisonment: Preventive, when 1t
Is suspected that a person has
criminal completely in an act;
formal, when against the ac-
cused there is sufficient evidence
in the judgment of the magis-
trate to suppose that the accused
Is guilty Of a crime; and ordi-
nary Imprisonment, which in
wolves a definite sentence as the
penalty provided for the crime
and the guilty of the accused
duly proved. The two first classes
Of Imprisonment are not legally
penalties, but restrictions to the
liberty of the accused, pending
investigation.
80. The judgment also de-
clare the innocence Of the ac-
cused.
Mr.. Jenkins has undergone de-
tention, first, and then formal
Imprisonment Of seventy-two
hours.
1t is because Of this that he
"Sb0 CG1A OSIC0B anu ILLS AS ~ Law
that he was to be consid-
cred by the government Of the
United States as persecution or
s-ries of injuries that are in
flicted unjustly on the consul.
In the course Of the trial, Mt
any time, the accused may ask
and obtain his liberty on bail.
Tho Mexican law is very liberal
about this, since all that is nee
essary is request and the pro-
duction of the sum fixed by the
judge. Mr.. jenkins refusal to eX-
ercise this right, notwithstand-
ing that he was asked to do SO
several times, and the fact that
the judge has fixed for him as
bond the sum of 1000 pesos, can
not permit him strictly to call
himself the victim of injuries
which he has brought upon him
self.
Government Power1ess
Mr.. Jenkins, finding himself,
then involved in a trial taht is
beingf1 conducted according to
law uAuGI lII6 JUL 1So1ClAOlL VI a
judge whose proceedings are
open, and are constantly under
the vigilance of public opinion
which is interested in learning
the truth Of the affair, the Mex
lean government finds itself I'M
der the necessity Of not being
able to accede to the demand for
liberation contained in the note
to which 1 am replying; and 1t
has for these strong reasons,
founded on the rights and consid-
erationS Of constitutional char
acter.
As to the first rights the gov
eminent believes no other gov
eminent can make diplomatic
claims for one of its subjects
abroad, save in the case where
Justice Is denied, or where the
sentence Is VIGOROUSLY excess
i've, which is also in interna-
tional law a denial of justice;
and that the practice which has
been invariably observed has
been that Of waiting for the
tribunals having cognizance Of
case, involving a foreigner, to
pronounce a judgment that, as
I have said, If it were notorious
ly unjust, would be the only basis
for a claim.
AS to the constitutional view
point, our political constitution
establishes as fundamental
principle the separation of the
eXecutive/power from that of the
judicial, and by virtue of this,
the executive does not have the
power to interfere in the bust
ness Of the latter.
Likewise the autonomy of the
various states is guaranteed in
our constitution, and by virtue of
the federal structure of the
Mexican republic, the federal
power cannot intervene in af-
fairs which, like that of Mr..
Jenkins, belongs properly and ex-
clusiVely 20 the authorities of the
state of Puebla. For this rea-
son, the executive could not or
der the judge having jurisdiction
of the case to free Mr.. Jenkins,
because this latter functionary
could with reason refuse to obey
such an order. The executive