Spaces of Law in American Foreign Relations: Extradition and Extraterritoriality in the Borderlands and Beyond, 1877-1898

Notes

NOTES Abbreviations Used in the Notes ALJ Albany Law Journal AHR American Historical Review AJIL American Journal of International Law AJLH The American Journal of Legal History ALR The American Law Review AQ American Quarterly BYIL British Yearbook of International Law BHR Business History Review CJTL Columbia Journal of Transnational Law CR Congressional Record EPT El Paso Times HLR Harvard Law Review CMPP James D. Richardson, ed. A Compilation of the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 1789–1908 JAH Journal of American History JCH Journal of Contemporary History JCLC The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology JPE Journal of Political Economy FRUS Foreign Relations of the United States MLR Michigan Law Review NARA National Archives NRJ Natural Resources Journal NYJILP New York University Journal of International Law & Politics NAR North American Review PSQ Political Science Quarterly PUSNI Proceedings of the United States Naval Institute RCUS Reports from the Consuls of the United States RG Record Group SCLR Southern California Law Review SHQ Southwestern Historical Quarterly [336] Notes to Introduction SLR Stanford Law Review UPLR University of Pennsylvania Law Review NYUJILP New York University Journal of International Law & Politics TLR Texas Law Review VLR Virginia Law Review YJIL Yale Journal of International Law YLJ Yale Law Journal Introduction 1. Sutton thought one recent situation reflected the snarled reality of impossibility: “a Mexican soldier deserted to the American side. His return was requested, but a local justice whose sympathies are perhaps largely with this class, had him arrested for bringing stolen property into the state [an extraditable crime], and had the sheriff, who delivered the man in midstream to the Mexican authorities, arrested for conniving at the escape of a prisoner. The sheriff in turn had the justice arrested for interfering with an officer, and both parties are now under bond for trial!” #30 Sutton to William Hunter, 3 July 1879, NARA, RG 59, Despatches from United States Consuls in Matamoros, 1826– 1906, roll 6. 2. #30 Sutton to William Hunter, 3 July 1879, NARA, RG 59, Despatches from United States Consuls in Matamoros, 1826–1906, roll 6. 3. Ibid. 4. #153, Sutton to William Wharton, 12 July 1890, NARA, RG 59, Despatches from United States Consuls in Nuevo Laredo, 1871–1906, roll 2. 5. Ibid. 6. Ibid. 7. #231, Sutton to William Wharton, 27 January 1891, ibid. On September 8, 1892, Adee wrote Sutton and said the department was well aware of the problems with the treaty and had even negotiated a treaty with Mexico on February 20, 1885. It was submitted to the senate on March 2, 1885, with a greatly expanded extraditable crimes list, but Mexico ultimately refused to ratify it. This is a rare time when a State Department response is inserted into this consular file—and importantly, it does not address the citizenship issues that Sutton stressed. Attached to #448, Sutton to Wharton, 4 August 1892, ibid. 8. This understanding of legal spatiality was shaped by Raustiala, “Evolution of Territoriality : International Relations and American Law,” in Territoriality and Conflict in an Era of Globalization, and the richly detailed Raustiala, Does the Constitution Follow the Flag? Also Sarat, Douglas, and Umphrey, “Where (or What) Is the Place of Law,” in The Place of Law, 2–6; Wong, “Rumor of Trafficking: Border Controls, Illegal Migration, Notes to Introduction [337] and the Sovereignty of the Nation-State,” in Illicit Flows and Criminal Things, 69–99; Taylor, “The State as Container,” 151–62; Krasner, Sovereignty, 152–83. 9. On the application of the Constitution in foreign relations at this time, though not expressly discussing extradition, see Cleveland, “Powers Inherent in Sovereignty,” 1–284; Aleinikoff, Semblances of Sovereignty; LaFeber, “The Constitution and United States Foreign Policy,” 695–717; Lawson and Seidman, Constitution of Empire. On foreign relations in this area, among other books cited herein, see Long, Gold Braid and Foreign Relations, 338–413, and Pletcher, The Awkward Years. 10. On the concept of “legalities,” this book follows the work of Christopher L. Tomlins , who emphasizes “legalities” rather than laws. The latter implies “universality of application , singularity of meaning, rightness” while “legality, in contrast, is a condition with social and cultural existence; it has specificity. . . . They are the means of effecting law’s discourses, the mechanisms through which law names, blames, and claims. . . . Legalities , so powerful, are also fragile and contingent.” Legalities should also be considered in terms of “the appropriation, occupation, and transformation of place.” Tomlins, “Introduction,” in...