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

TWO. Jurisdiction, Sovereignty, and Space

CHAPTER TWO Jurisdiction, Sovereignty, and Space There is, of course, a vast amount of lawlessness on this frontier. . . . [T]he criminals from each side escape to the other where they are safe from arrest . . . . Laredo, Texas is becoming thoroughly Americanized and law and order should prevail. These can only be secured by prompt punishment of criminals. As long as these cities are harbors for law violation, and immunity secured by crossing a fordable river, just so long life and property are in danger. John F. Jenne, U.S. Vice-Consul, Nuevo Laredo, 1880 The ease of migration, incursion, smuggling, and fugitive escape in the borderlands made extradition and interdiction important and especially difficult issues between the United States and Mexico. The ever-contested boundary line between the two nations made the interconnection between the criminal legal systems, as between the states themselves, a thornier and more daily contest than was the case in U.S. relations with other nations. Policymakers also generally believed the region to be more lawless and violent than others, rooted in a racialized understanding of Mexican justice that colored the U.S. perception of virtually every discussion of establishing order on the border. There was a pronounced sense that the justice system in Mexico was inherently corrupt and flawed, if not actually inoperable. American policymakers at all levels of authority stressed the lawlessness of this system and its arbitrary treatment of Americans below the border. They also did not trust Mexican authorities to seek out or pursue fugitives, to treat innocent Americans with respect or lawfulness , or to execute extradition warrants faithfully. The rugged geography of the border had a pronounced impact on the trajectory of politics and governance of jurisdiction in the region. In Texas, the Rio [96] Chapter Two Grande boundary presented everything from a formidable barrier to an easily fordable crossing, depending on the area, and it was the river itself that fundamentally shaped all future considerations. Making matters more interesting and difficult—and ensuring snarled jurisdictions—the river boundary moved significantly and often. Further west at a place like Nogales, border-crossing simply meant crossing the street. The desert boundary was inhospitable but wide open, and the national boundary was simply not always clear. Secretary of State John Sherman once dismissed some of the labor put into boundary definitions as having “but small intrinsic worth” and “generally of little value” since some of the borderlands was “hopeless desert.” Nevertheless the lines in this “hopeless desert” mattered mightily in determining jurisdiction and power. Under the broad guidance of U.S. foreign policymakers, there existed strikingly different legal regimes across the entire length of the border, determined by local officials, the size, nature, and distribution of the local populace, the basis of economic exchange, the distribution of U.S. troops and local law enforcement , and the level and variety of criminality and revolutionary behavior of the populace. This chapter considers these varying jurisdictional regimes in the region as they were enacted across this vast space and in conjunction with the systems of movement, governance, and illegality that operated within it. THE GEOPOLITICS OF EXTRADITION AND INTERDICTION IN ARIZONA One of the basic difficulties of maintaining clear jurisdictional lines along the U.S.-Mexico border in the Arizona and New Mexico territories was determining the exact boundary line. Strict territoriality in jurisdiction demanded a similar effort on the map. In 1881, John J. Gosper, the acting governor of Arizona wrote Secretary of the Interior S. J. Kirkwood that it was essential to clearly determine the national boundaries, as “connected with the grand march of events, looking toward rapid settlements and a better civilization for Mexico from the American side, many efforts will be made by unscrupulous men to take advantage of unguarded lines and laws.” Even though there were stones marking the boundary in some spots, “in many instances, [they were] so far between as to make it very difficult to distinguish with any definiteness where the line [ran].” The material, size, “thickness,” placement, number, and location of these monument stones demarcating the border were a persistent focus of discussion throughout this period. The same year, Secretary of State James G. Blaine also Jurisdiction, Sovereignty, and Space [97] wrote Kirkwood a long correspondence “touching certain difficulties and disturbances alleged to arise from the absence of distinct marks on the boundary line between the United States and Mexico.” Following an agreement with Mexico in...