No. 325.
Mr. Bayard
to Mr. Jackson.
Washington, July 27, 1886.
Sir: Since my No. 221, of the 20th instant, I have received no further communication from Mr. Brigham, consul at El Paso, nor from yourself, in connection with the imprisonment of Mr. A. K. Cutting by Mexican authority.
On Saturday last, the 24th instant, I was called upon by M. Romero, the minister from Mexico at this capital, in relation to the case referred to.
Mr. Romero produced to me the Mexican laws, Article 186, whereby jurisdiction is assumed by Mexico over crimes committed against Mexicans within the United States or any other foreign country; and under this he maintained the publication of a libel in Texas was made cognizable and punishable in Mexico; and thus Mr. Cutting was assumed to be properly held.
This claim of jurisdiction and lawful control by Mexico was peremptorily and positively denied by me, and the statement enunciated that the United States would not assent to or permit the existence of such extraterritorial force to be given to Mexican law, nor their own jurisdiction to be so usurped, or their own local justice to be so vicariously executed by a foreign government.
In the absence of any treaty of amity between the United States and Mexico providing for the trial of the citizens of the two countries respectively, the rules of international law would forbid the assumption of such power by Mexico as is contained in the Penal Code, Article 186, above cited. The existence of such power was and is denied by the United States.
Mr. Romero informed me that the local or state jurisdiction over Cutting’s case did not allow interference by the national Government of Mexico in the matter, and that it was this conflict that had induced delay in responding to the demand of this Government for Mr. Cutting’s release.
Mr. Romero finally assured me that I might rely confidently upon Mr. Cutting’s release in a very short time, and that there would be no doubt about the compliance of his Government with the demand made through you.
I communicated these facts to you in order to give you a full comprehension of the case as it appears here, and the disposition of the Mexican Government, as here expressed.
[Page 707]There was a more extended conversation on my part with Mr. Romero on the general subject of the treatment by the Mexican authorities of American citizens, and cases affecting their property and interests.
I stated to him personally and at some length the single voice that had come to this Department from Mr. Foster, Mr. Morgan, and yourself, in which a declaration was made of the hopelessness of obtaining justice to our citizens in cases where they had been wronged by the officials and Government of Mexico.
I also called his attention to the avowed policy and action of Mr. Mariscal of compelling all claims wherein the Government of Mexico was sought to be held liable for tortious proceedings to be tried and decided in tribunals of her own creation and under her sole control, whose judgments, he claimed, should be held final and conclusive against citizens of the United States.
As this pretension of exclusive control was now under consideration and the subject of correspondence, notably in the case of the “Rebecca,” I stated merely that the United States did not accept the judgments of Mexican tribunals in cases where Mexico was a party to the dispute to be binding upon the United States.
I passed, however, to the broader view of the necessity of administering international laws in a spirit of amity, comity, and justice; that these were the wise and true paths of peaceful government, and that the alternatives of reprisal and force were the last and most unsatisfactory resorts.
Mr. Romero is too well convinced to make my renewed avowal necessary that nothing inconsistent with the self-respect, honor, and prosperity of Mexico is desired or intended by the United States, and that it was in the interest of Mexico even more than of the United States that no friction or exasperation should be permitted in the intercourse of the two Governments and of their inhabitants; that to avoid all such irritation or the straining of our friendly relations it is essential that a spirit and readiness to redress wrongs and enforce equitable settlements of matters of difference should be constantly and practically manifested.
I am persuaded of the good intent of Mr. Romero towards this Government, and believe him also to be patriotically faithful to his own. From him I have assurances that a desire to respond in a friendly and conciliatory spirit influences the present Mexican administration.
And if this be the true state of affairs, it can be readily demonstrated, and all questions of conflicting interests and opinions now under consideration diplomatically between the two Governments can without difficulty be equitably, honorably, and satisfactorily adjusted.
I am, &c.,