In the footnote just given a number of instances are given in which Great Britain and the United States assert extraterritorial jurisdiction notwithstanding the acceptance by them of the general rule that they will take criminal cognizance only of acts committed, or taking effect, within their respective territorial limits. Another recent American instance is that provided for in the socalled Webb-Pomerene Law of April 10, 1918, entitled "An Act to Promote Export Trade and for other Purposes. "15 By section 4 of this act the "unfair competition" clause of the Federal Trade Commission Act of September 26, 1914, was extended so as expressly to include prohibited acts committed without the territorial jurisdiction of the United States. Section 5 of the same Act also provides that the Commission shall have powers of investigation where "An Association, either in the United States or elsewhere, has entered into any agreement, understanding, or conspiracy, or done any act which artificially or intentionally enhances or depresses prices within the United States of commodities of the class exported by such association, or which substantially lessens competition within the United States, or otherAct of 1890, and the Orders in Council passed thereunder, (9) certain other cases of minor importance. For a more complete list see Stephen, Digest of Criminal Procedure, pp. 3 et seq.

The following are instances in which the United States asserts extraterritorial jurisdiction: transportation of explosives on vessels or vehicles carrying passengers between the United States and foreign countries (Criminal Code, sec. 232); judicial authority of American diplomatic and other representatives in certain non-Christian, uncivilized countries (U. S. Rev. St., secs. 4083-4088); islands having guano deposits discovered by an American citizen (U. S. Rev. St., sec. 5576); murder on the high seas (Crim. Code, secs. 272, 273, 275); citizens voluntarily on board a foreign slave-trade vessel (Crim. Code, sec. 252); treason (Crim. Code, sec. 1); criminal correspondence with foreign governments (Crim. Code, sec. 5); perjury or forgery committed in connection with an oath, affidavit or deposition administered or taken by an American Secretary of legation or consular official abroad (U. S. Rev. St., sec. 1750). This list is taken from the article "The Webb-Pomerene Law: Extraterritorial Scope of the Unfair Competition Clause," by William Notz, in the Yale Law Journal, for November, 1919, p. 38. 1540 Stat at L. 516.

wise restrains trade therein." If, as a result of such investigation, the Commission finds that the law has been violated, it is authorized to recommend that the association change its practices so as to cease doing so; and, if this recommendation is not heeded, to refer its findings and recommendations to the Attorney-General of the United States for such action as he may deem fit.

With reference to the exercise by a State of criminal jurisdiction over its own citizens for offenses committed by them while outside its territorial limits, little, if any, objection is raised by the States within whose borders the offenses may have been committed. It scarcely needs be said, however, that this jurisdiction does not warrant the prosecuting State in violating the territorial jurisdiction of another State in order to obtain custody of the accused. Therefore, if the State whose laws warrant the prosecution wishes to proceed to judgment, except by way of default, it must wait until the accused voluntarily enters its territory, or until it obtains possession of him by regular extradition proceedings.18

It does not need to be said that the doctrine that, as a legal proposition, a State may exercise criminal jurisdiction over foreigners for acts committed by them upon

10

In case of default, judgment by way of fine can be executed against any property that the defendant may have within the State. In some States, as for example was formerly the case in China, the relatives of the criminal or even his home community could be punished for his acts, a doctrine of vicarious responsibility which, though perhaps not just in the eyes of the modern Western world, adds greatly to the effectiveness of the administration of criminal justice.

It would appear to be an established principle of law, not only in the United States but in other countries, that if possession of the accused be obtained by a State by forcibly abducting him from another State, or by other means in violation of the law of that State, the jurisdiction over him thus obtained is as complete as if he had been obtained by lawful means. In other words, such illegal or irregular means may constitute proper grounds for complaint upon the part of the State whose laws have been broken or jurisdiction violated, but they do not give to the defendant himself any legal right to defeat the jurisdiction of the State in whose custody he finds himself. As to this see Mahon v. Justice, 127 U. S. 700, and Ker v. Illinois, 119 U. S. 436, and other cases, British and American, therein cited.

foreign soil, does not carry with it a denial of the legal right of the States of which these same persons are citizens, or upon whose soil the acts complained of are committed, to resist the exercise of such jurisdiction by the first State, and, in case it is, or is attempted to be exercised, to make the matter one of international concern between the governments concerned. Protests thus made may be based upon the ground that the territorial sovereignty of the complaining State has been invaded, or that the rights of its citizens have been violated, or that the jurisdiction asserted is one that is not approved by international law or comity, whatever may be its validity as purely a matter of municipal law.

The Cutting Case. A controversy which, at the time, aroused considerable interest with reference to the extent to which one State will permit another State to exercise criminal jurisdiction over its (the first State's) own citizens for offenses committed outside the territorial limits of the prosecuting State is the Cutting case which arose in 1886 between the United States and Mexico.

That controversy grew out of the arrest in Mexico of an American citizen upon the charge of having published in the United States a libel upon a Mexican.17 It clearly appeared that the Mexican law gave to its courts jurisdiction in the premises, but, none the less, the American Government strenuously protested and demanded the immediate release of its citizen. This it did not only upon the ground that Cutting had not been given a fair hearing, but upon the alleged ground that the attempt of Mexico to exercise such jurisdiction was, in itself, inter"The record of this case shows that the newspaper in which the libel appeared had circulated in Mexico, and, therefore, that the Mexican courts might have defended their jurisdiction wholly upon the ground that the offense charged against Cutting had been committed upon Mexican soil. This, however, the Mexican courts and the Mexican Government did not do, but insisted that jurisdiction under the Mexican law extended to the original publication of the libel in the United States.

nationally viewed, an unjustifiable one. The American Secretary of State, Mr. Bayard, writing to the American Minister at Mexico City, with reference to the character of the proceedings that had been had, said:

By the law of nations no punishment can be inflicted by a sovereign on citizens of other countries unless in conformity with those sanctions of justice which all civilized nations hold in common. Among those sanctions are the right of having the facts on which the charge of guilt was made examined by an impartial court, the explanation to the accused of these facts, the opportunity granted to him of counsel, such delay as is necessary to prepare his case, permission in all cases to go at large on bail until trial, the due production under oath of all evidence prejudicing the accused, giving him the right to cross-examination, the right to produce his own evidence in exculpation, release even from temporary imprisonment in all cases where the charge is simply one of threatened breach of the peace, and due security to keep the peace is tendered. these sanctions were violated in the present case.

All

As to the right of the Mexican authorities to take any action whatever in the premises, Mr. Bayard, referring to the alleged libel, said:

The proposition that Mexico can take jurisdiction of its author on account of its publication in Texas is wholly inadmissible, and peremptorily denied by this Government. . . . To an assumption of such jurisdiction by Mexico neither the Government of the United States nor the governments of our several States will submit. They will mete out due justice to all offenses committed in their respective jurisdictions. They will not permit that this prerogative shall in any degree be usurped by Mexico, nor, aside from the fact of the exclusiveness of their jurisdiction over acts done within their own dominions, will they permit a citizen of the United States to be called to account for acts done by him within the boundaries of the United States. On this ground, therefore, you will demand Mr. Cutting's release."

It cannot be denied that this was strong and unqualified language, but the doctrine declared was one by which 18 U. S. Foreign Relations, 1886, p. 700.

the United States was qualified to assert that it would be guided in its dealings with other States. Consistency would require that it would make this a rule as to all other States, and that, upon its own part, it would not attempt the exercise of a jurisdiction such as that which Mexico had asserted. Mr. Bayard, it would seem, did not claim that this jurisdiction was one which had no support in the municipal practice of other States, or, indeed, international practice. He would, in fact, have had difficulty in successfully doing so. Leaving aside the character of the proceedings as regards fair hearing, etc., this was, indeed, the weak side, internationally speaking, of the American case, for, to the extent that the claim of jurisdiction such as Mexico had exercised, was made and acquiesced in by other States, the United States was put in the position of adopting an international policy that was not that of the rest of the world.

Immediate release of Cutting was refused by the Mexican Government; he was brought to trial in the Mexican court, jurisdiction was sustained, conviction was secured, and a punishment imposed of a year's imprisonment at hard labor, a fine of six hundred dollars (or, in default of payment thereof, a further imprisonment of one hundred days), and the payment of a civil indemnity to the person who claimed to have been injured by the publication. After quoting the section of the Mexican Penal Code which, in explicit language, gave the jurisdiction in question, the Mexican trial judge, in his decision, said:

Considering . . . that according to the rule of law Judex non de legibus, sed secundum legem debet judicare, it does not belong to the judge who decides to examine the principle laid down in said Article 186, but to apply it fully, it being the law in force in the State.

In the Supreme Court of Chihuahua, to which the case was taken on appeal, the decision of the court below was fully approved, but Cutting was released upon the ground