Evening star., 1927-08-30

may be thrown into the nooSegoW anu
held for life or for execution be-
cause they We're criminal" in what
they had said in a speech made on the
Plaza in Washington or the Common
in Boston.
Perhaps they will be accused of libel
against a man in ItalyAlibel commit
ted for example in the columns of the
Corriere D'America, published in New
York Being a case of criminal libel
in New York, the libeler is arrested
and sentenced to 80 days or year in
q New York Jail. He serves his sen
tence and then he becomes homesick
to visit his relatives back iii Italy. he
reaches Rome. only to be met by Off
GERS who have been cabled to rear
rest him in Italy and he has to stand
trial there again on the same charge.
with no witnesses within 1000 miles
to show mitigation or that he has been
once tried and should not suffer dou-
bic Jeopardy for the same offense. Pos
sibly his article in the Corriere
D'America is construed in Italy TO
have reflected upon Italian institu-
tions, and so he receives sentence for
life. Or might he not be executed?
Or that alleged ''libeler" of an Ital-
ian citizen might be a native Ameri-
can descended from Pilgrims Of the
Mayfiower; if caught in Italy, he
would be in danger of his life or lib
erty. Beware. We tourists!
What would the State Department
of the United States be doing about
the time the first attempt was made TO
give literal Interpretation to the new
decree? Turn to history!
X \ X x
First read John Bassett Moore's en-
ternational Law Digest" volume II,
p. 2:5-he quotes Secretary of State
Calhoun's letter to our Ambassador to
Great Britain, Mr.. Everett, August Z,
1914:
NO act committed in one country,
however criminal according to its
laws, is criminal according to the
laws of the other. Crimes in a legal
sense are local, and are so only be.
cause the acts constituting them are
declared to be so by the laws of the
country where they are committed.
Great Britain cannot by her laws
make an act committed within the
jurisdiction of the United States crimi-
nal within her territories. however im-
moral of itself. and vice versa. The
proposition is too clear to require IL
lustration or to be contended. but IL
that be admitted it must also be admit
ted that the criminality referred to in
the proviso is to be judged by the laws
of the country within whose jurisdic-
ton the act was alleged to have been
perpetrated, and not where the fugi-
tive is found"
Secretary of State Calhoun later
reiterated the above position and
added: standing on this we'll estab-
liShed and unqueStioned principle, we
cannot permit Great Britain or any
other nation, be its object or motive
what it may, to infringe upon our SOW
ereignty by extending its criminal
jurisdiction to acts committed within
the limits of the United States. be
they perpetrated by whom they may.
All therein are subject to their (the
United States) jurisdiction. entitled to
their protection and amenable exclu-
sively to their laws
A footnote to the above quotes
sentence from Berrien. Attorney Gen
eral, 1880, 1.-The courts of the United
States do not execute the penal laws
of another country"
x X X
A later precedent occurred in 1876,
involving Brazil and the United
States, in which Secretary Of State
Stuyvesant Fish took the same up
standing position against an attempt
of that country to prosecute Brazilian
subjects for acts committed outside or
Brazilian territory, and Secretary Fish
indorsed the law officers of the crown
of Great Britain in also taking the
same position.
The most notable case was that ~
A. *. Cutting. citizen of Texas. who
in 1886, in a controversy of q personal
nature with a Mexican. published in
a local paper ut FL Paso, Tex. Il card
ROT hn nf
Mexican. Later, Cutting went into
Mexico, where he was arrested,
thrown into a vile prison. without
trial, refused counsel or interpreter,
or any information of what We're the
charges against him.
The American consul reported the
case, and Secretary Of State Bayard
wired back: You are instructed To-
demand of the Mexican government
the instant release of A. K. Cutting,
q citizen of the United States. now
imprisoned at Paso del
Norte"
Commenting on the case TO our
consul. Secretary Bayard wrote:
1T is equivalent to asserting tina
Mexico can take jurisdiction over the
authors of the various criticisms of
Mexican business operations which
appear in the newspapers of the
United States. If Mr.. Cutting can be
tried and imprisoned i'm Mexico for
in the United States
criticism on Mexican business trar~-
action in which he was concerned,
there is not an editor or publisher OF
4 newspaper in the United States who
could not. were he found in Mexico
be subjected to like indignities ana
injuries on the same ground. To an
assumption of such jurisdiction ny
Mexico, neither the Government OF the
United States nor the governments
Of the several States will submit
X X x x
The Mexican Minister to the United
States showed to our State Depart
ment a Mexican law almost ident-
al with the new Italian decree: "Penal
offenses committed in a foreign coun'
-ry by Mexican against MeXicans
)r foreigners, or by a foreigner
against MeXicans. may be punished
n the Republic (MeXico) and accord
ng to it's laws"
Later, Mexico enlarged the charge
against Cutting: While the paper had
been printed in Texas, more than
hree copies had circulated in Mexico,
therefore, the offense had been COM
nitted in Mexico. The case became
notable; President Cleveland discussed
t in a message to Congress, asking
or a strengthening and clearing or
procedure, and an indemnity was col
ected for Cutting from Mexico. for
lis unlawful Imprisonment.
In the famous language Of PatricI
Henry little paraphrased. "Mussf.
ini may profit by their example,.