The appellate court in releasing Mr.
Cutting decided that the abandonment of the complaint by the Mexican
citizen aggrieved by the alleged crime (a libelous publication) removed
the basis of further prosecution, and also declared justice to have been
satisfied by the enforcement of a small part of the original sentence.
The admission of such a pretension would be attended with serious
results, invasive of the jurisdiction of this Government and highly
dangerous to our citizens in foreign lands. Therefore I have denied it
and protested against its attempted exercise as unwarranted by the
principles of law and international usages.
A sovereign has jurisdiction of offenses which take effect within his
territory, although concocted or commenced outside of it; but the right
is denied of any foreign sovereign to punish a citizen of the United
States for an offense consummated on our soil in violation of our laws,
even though the offense be against a subject or citizen of such
sovereign. The Mexican statute in question makes the claim broadly, and
the principle, if conceded, would create a dual responsibility in the
citizen and lead to inextricable confusion, destructive of that
certainty in the law which is an essential of liberty.
When citizens of the United States voluntarily go into a foreign
country, they must abide by the laws there in force, and will not be
protected by their own Government from the consequences of an offense
against those laws committed in such foreign country; but watchful care
and interest of this Government over its citizens are not relinquished
because they have gone abroad, and if charged with crime committed in
the foreign land a fair and open trial, conducted with decent regard for
justice and humanity, will be demanded for them.
Pages:
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370