New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1919-11-28

that no legal foundation principle or
precedent of international right, or
even of reason, is invoked in the de-
mand for the Immediate liberation of
MIR. Jenkins, who, as you know, is at
present under the jurisdi ction of a
judge of the City of Puebla.
The Mexican government cannot
see what the foundation for such
demand might be. 1t believes that
1t can be only the power of the coun-
try that makes it, although the
United States has expressed the de-
sire on various occasions that right
and justice should be the basis of
its diplomacy and respect for weak
countries the basis of its interna-
tional relations on the continent.
Quotes Mexican Laws
The terms of note which I am
answering are attributed by my gov
eminent to an imperfect understand
ing OF our penal laws. The :mpris-
onment is neither unjust nor arbi-
trarv, as your notes states. since Mr..
Jenkins himself has signed contra
dlctory statements regarding the
kidnapping of which nd was vic
tim. The judge has had ample
foundation 30 suppose that he was
guilty of the crime of classifying
judicial declaration, and this has
caused his Imprisonment.
Nevertheless this Imprisonment
does not Of itself signify that Mr..
Jenkins is guilty, because such fact
can be established only by def
mite judgment.
Detention Is Defended
Your excellency knows that the
criminal proceeding in Mexico in
wolves three classes of imprisonment
preventive, when it is suspected
that q person has criminal compile
ity in an act; formal, when against
the accused there is sufficient evil
dence. in the judgment of the magis-
trate, to suppose that the accused is
guilty of the crime; and ordinary
imprisonment, which involves definT
tive sentence as the penalty provided
for the crime and the guilt of the &C
cused duly proved.
The two first classes of imprison-
ment are not legal penalties, but re-
strictions to the liberty of the &C
cused, pending investigation. The
Judgment may also declare the in
nocence of the accused
Refused to Give Bail
Mr.. Jenkins has undergone pre-
ventive detention, first, and then a
formal Imprisonment Of seventy-twwo
hours. 1t is because of this that he
was rearrested, and this is a fact
that seems 10 be considered by the
government of the United States as
persecution or a series of injuries
that are inflicted unjustly on the
consul.
In the course of the trial, at any
time, the accused my ask and obtain
his liberty on bail. The Mexican law
is very liberal about this, since all
that is necessary is q request and
the production of the sum fixed by
the judge. Mr.. Jenkins's refusal to
exercise this right, notwithstanding
that he was asked to do so several
has fixed for him as bond the sum
NIT him strictly to call himself the
victim of injuries which he has
brought upon himself.
Mr.. Jenkins, finding himself, then,
involved in a trial that is being con-
Quoted according to law, under the
jurisdiction of a judge whose pro
ceedlngs are open and are constantly
under the vigilance of public opinion,
which is interested in learning the
truth OF the affair, the Mexican gov
eminent finds itself under the neces-
slty of not being able to accede to
the demand for liberation contained
in the note to which | am replying,
and it has so decided for these strong
reasons, founded on the rights Of
peoples and considerations of consti-
tutlonal character.
Appeals to World Law
AS to the first rights, the govern
ment believes no other government
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
slve, which is also in international
law denial Of justice, and that the
practice which has been invariably
observed has been that of waiting
for the tribunals having cogni-
zance Of case Involving for
eigner to pronounce judgment
that, as l have said. if it were no
toriously unjust, would be the only
basis for claim.
AS to the constitutional view
point, our political constitution es-
tablishes as a fundamental princi-
pie 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 business Of the latter.
Likewise, the autonomy of the va
rious states is guaranteed in our