No. 321.
Mr. Jackson to Mr. Bayard.
Legation of
the United States,
Mexico, July 22, 1886.
(Received July 31.)
No. 272.]
Sir: On the evening of the 19th instant,
immediately after the receipt of your telegram of that date, I addressed a
note to Mr. Mariscal, of which I now forward a copy. I thought it wise, for
the purpose of avoiding possible delay in his action, to direct Mr.
Mariscal’s attention to the fact that his note of 7th instant, relating to
Mr. Cutting’s case, was probably before you when the instruction was sent by
wire to me, and was therefore not satisfactory.
After making the demand I telegraphed to Mr. Brigham to give me prompt notice
of Mr. Cutting’s release. Having heard nothing from him nor from Mr.
Mariscal during the 20th, on the 21st I addressed another note to Mr.
Mariscal, a copy of which I also inclose, and late in the evening received
his answer, of which a copy and translation are now sent. They go by the
earliest mail after the receipt of the original note by me, but were
anteceded by a telegram, in the following words:
Instant release of Cutting refused. Reasons given at length. Shall I
telegraph them?
I also inclose a translation copy of Article 260, Code of Penal Procedure,
referred to in the communication from the governor of Chihuahua to Mr.
Mariscal, which accompanied the note of the latter to myself.
I am, &c.,
[Inclosure 1 in No. 272.]
Mr. Jackson to Mr.
Mariscal.
Legation of the United States,
Mexico, July 19,
1886.
Sir: I hasten to communicate to your excellency
the following telegram, which I have just received from Mr. Bayard,
Secretary of State at Washington: “You are instructed to demand of the
Mexican Government the instant release of A. K. Cutting, a citizen of
the United States, now unlawfully imprisoned at Paso del Norte.”
It is proper for me to state that, upon referring to my correspondence
with my own Government, I ascertain that a copy of your excellency’s
esteemed note of 7th instant was forwarded to Mr. Bayard on the 8th,
immediately upon its receipt, and must, consequently, have been received
by him prior to the 19th instant, the date of his telegram.
In making this demand, through your excellency, I beg to renew the
assurance of my most distinguished consideration.
[Inclosure 2 in No. 272.]
Mr. Jackson to Mr.
Mariscal.
Legation of the United States,
Mexico, July 21,
1886.
Sir: On the 19th instant I had the honor of
making a demand through your excellency upon the Mexican Government, for
the instant release of Mr. A. K. Cutting, a citizen of the United
States, unlawfully imprisoned at Paso del Norte. This demand was made
under directions by telegram from my own Governmentl.
[Page 704]
Although instructed by me to communicate by telegram the fact of the
release of Mr. Cutting, up to this moment I have heard nothing from Mr.
Brigham, United States consul at Paso del Norte.
For these reasons I apprehend that possibly my note of the 19th instant,
though sent by the usual channel, may not have been placed in your
excellency’s hands.
In calling attention to this matter I renew the assurance of my most
distinguished consideration.
[Inclosure 3 in No.
272.—Translation.]
Mr. Mariscal to Mr.
Jackson.
Department of Foreign Affairs,
Mexico, July 21,
1886.
Mr. Minister: Yesterday I had the honor of
receiving your excellency’s communication, dated the day before, and
containing a telegram from Mr. Bayard, the Secretary of State, addressed
to that legation, to demand from the Mexican Government the instant
release of A. K. Cutting, imprisoned illegally, as that message said, in
Paso del Norte; and to-day there has reached my hands another
communication of this morning, in which your excellency, not having
received notice that the prisoner had left the jail, supposes that I
have not received the first of the said notes.
As soon as I had noted the contents of that communication, I telegraphed
to the governor of Chihuahua, re-recommending the matter to him, asking
him to advise me as to its status. As yet I have not received a reply to
that telegram, up to this hour (2 p.m.), and this I should not wonder
at, in fact, as I know that the said functionary has had to address the
supreme tribunal of the State, and the tribunal the judge at Paso del
Norte. Mr. Minister, these are delays that are inevitable in a country
governed by institutions like ours, where the Federal Executive is
unable to communicate directly with the local authorities of the States.
Much less could it give them orders. To do thus Would imply a positive
offense, especially in the case of judges independent even of the
administrative power of the State to which they belong, and that offense
would be even more aggravated if designed to trample out and
peremptorily stop a legal process, instituted by an interested party, as
I understand the case of Mr. Cutting to be.
These considerations cannot but have been evident to the judgment of your
excellency’s Government, as they refer to the nature of institutions in
that particular identical to those in force in the United States of
America. I believe, therefore, that only the pressure brought to bear by
private persons, or perhaps by an ill-informed press, can have been able
to bring about the result that a Government friendly to Mexico, and
which up to the present has no complaint against this nation for lack of
compliance with its international obligations, should demand in an
absolute manner what is, in every light, morally impossible.
In the matter under treatment all has been done up to the present by this
Government that comes in the sphere of its facilities; all that can be
asked of it while amity and peace reign between the two nations.
Interposed, as has been the moral influence of the President of the
Republic, to the end that the case may be conducted with justice, it
should be confidently hoped that very soon the matter will be terminated
in a satisfactory manner.
I infer this not only from these reflections, but also from the
recommendation made by the supreme tribunal of justice of Chihuahua,
which your excellency will see in the accompaniment which I have the
honor to inclose, and which document I received in original to-day, sent
to me in consequence of the communication which I addressed to the
governor of that State on the 7th instant relative to the matter.
I am, &c.,
[Inclosure 4 in No. 272.]
Mr. Maceyra to Mr.
Mariscal.
[Mexican Republic, Government of the State of Chihuahua,
second section, Department of Justice, No. 1339.]
The president of the supreme tribunal of justice of the State, in a
communication, No. 733, of the 14th of the current month, says to this
Government:
“The supreme tribunal of justice, over which I have the honor to preside,
having noted the contents of your esteemed communication, No. 1279, of
the 12th instant, in
[Page 705]
which you
are pleased to forward a communication addressed to you by the secretary
of state and of the department of foreign affairs, recommending that
justice he administered to Mr. A. K. Cutting in the imprisonment of
which he complains, under this date the supreme tribunal decreed what I
copy, without preventing the second judge of Bravos from administering
prompt and due justice in the matter referred to by the secretary of
state and of the department of foreign affairs in the communication
forwarded by the executive of the State: Let the said second judge
report within the term of three days, and through the justice of peace
of the district, regarding the acts which said communication mentions,
said report in original to be sent to him, recommending the application
of the 260th article of the Code of Penal Procedure,” and I am honored
in communicating the same to you for your information and in due reply
to your note referred to.”
I have the honor to inclose the above to you for your information, and as
a resultant on your communication of the 7th instant relating
thereto.
Liberty and constitution,
Chihuahua, July 17,
1886.
FELIX FRANCISCO MACEYRA.
To the Secretary of State and of the Department
of Foreign Affairs, Mexico.
[Inclosure 5 in No.
272.—Translation.]
Article 260, Code of Penal Procedure.
Every person detained or imprisoned for an offense whose punishment may
not exceed five years’ imprisonment can obtain his liberty under bail,
with the consent of the prosecuting attorney; provided always, that he
has a fixed and known domicile; that he possesses property, or exercises
some profession, industry, art, or trade, and that in the judgment of
the court there is no fear that he will escape.
