Arizona republican., 1919-11-28
CAPITOL SILENT AS T0 VIEWS ON
 MEXICAN REPLY
Argumentative Refusal of Carranza Government to Release Jenkins Expected to Bring Forth New De- velopments Today-Note Not Made Public

WASHINGTON, Nov. 27.-Mexico has relied with an argumentative diplomatic refusal to the American governments demand for the imme- diate release of William o. Jenkins the consular agent imprisoned at Puebla- The official note was de- livered today but not made public There is no reason to doubt that it agrees with the copy given out last night by the Mexican consul general at Fl Paso.
 No comment was forthcoming to in dicate how the state department re- gards the answer to what was consid- cred one of the sharpest warnings yet sent to Mexico and neither was there any indication of what the govern ment's next step would be.
 The Mexican reply which, according to it's text, was prepared at the direc- tion of President Carranza, argues in the main that the Mexican government cannot order the release of prisoner while his case is under adjudication in the civil courts of one of it's states and contends that the American gov ernment's demand for the consular agents release had no foundation or precedent in international law.
 Some new angles Of the Mexican viewpoint on the Jenkins case hither- to unpublished in the United States, are revealed. The tendency of the Mexican argument is to separate the Jenkins case into two phases: First, the situation in which the consular agent was kidnaped by bandits and held for ransom, and last, his subsequent arrest and Imprisonment by the civil authorities of Puebla on a charge of having "connived" with the bandits. The note at hand deals with the latter phase exclusively.
 It points out that Jenkins was first held under what is known to the Mexican penal code as preventative imprisonment" This provision covers situation in which a person is sus- pected of complicity in a criminal act. He subsequently was held under a pro vision covering formal imprison- ment, which under the Mexican penal code, applies when a magistrate be- l lieves theer is sufficient evidence to establish that crime has been com- mitted. The allegation against Jen- 1 kins is that he signed conflicting state ments regarding his Kidnapping and therefore was guilty of falsifying ju- dicial declaration" The note says Jenkins has opportunity to be released on bail in the sum of 1000 pesos, the equivalent of $500 in American money, | if reckoned in coin rather than Mexi- can bank notes. and that Jenkins has refused to avail himself of it, although l he has been requested to do so.
 Recalling that Mexican consuls in the | United States had been imprisoned and that Mexico has never asked the United States to waive law in their case, the note remarks that the Mex l ican government cannot concede to | American citizens more rights than Mexicans enjoy in the United States
 The Mexican note opens with the observation that the foundation for the American governments demand probably "can only be the power o1 the country that makes it" and as the conclusion of lengthy legal argument expressed it's hope that the state de- partment will withhold its judgment on the Jenkins case until the civil courts in Puebla have passed on it. In the note to Mexico the state de. partment not only demanded the i'm
 mediate release of Jenkins but warned Carranza that further molestation oi the consular agent would bring rela- tions between the two countries to a precarious point. As the sequel to one Kidnapping case after another. Jenk ins arrest and imprisonment by loca' | Carranza authorities "incensed' this
 government, as Secretary Lansings note expressed it.
 Whether the government will regard the Jenkins case as climax to tho long list of unsettled questions witt Mexico, is not being indicated in any official way. Technically. consular agent has no diplomatic status ant
 immunities and like diplomatic agen
 is not beyond local law.
 I Diplomatists are of the opinion tha'
 in framing its further action the gov. ernment here will have to determine
 whether the civil prosecution of Jenk ins is a civil prosecution in good faitf in which the consular agent is receiv,
 ing a speedy and fair trial with al preservation of his rights, or whether he is being "molested' by the Car, ranza government while legal ant \ technical arguments are being ad ivanced to justify the proeedNre