The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-03-15

Counsel for Claimants, Etc.
The case of the steamship Ktocr, seized bJ
the Government fer alleged Vlo 2tlon OF Tue
neutrality laws, came up yesterday in the Unitcl
s ltes District Court before Judge Bets. MesSrs.
William NJ Evart3 and Joseph H. Chost1 ap-
peared for the owners OF the vessel, and Mr..
CAoats moved, under the siXtistI rule Of the
Court, for the appointment OF appraisers to re-
poIt 70 the Corrt the value OF the vessel, with 9
VIEW of having her delivered to her owners on
bond. The rule referred is a. follows:-
In cases OF texture of properly in behalf OF the
United States, an appralsement for the purpose
OF bonding the same, may be hau by any party
n interest on G .ng one days previous notice
o. motion before the court, or the judge il vacl'
ton for the appointment of appraiseIJ.
Mir. Courtney, Assistant United States District
Attorney, who appeared for the Government,
said that he could ind no Authority for the
action contemplated by t1.j ociol, except the
general rule of the CourJ, founded on the Reve.
nue. Act 1899; and bonding could not be dc.
manded IN cases Of alleged violation of the neu-
tralitY laws. Ia the course OF the objections Of
Mr.. Courtney, he said thcle was one which
would be fatal TO this molten, II wGJ found in
lie Ter iiom the state Depar nent to the District
Alto. .ley. The Spanish Minister had made all
application 20 Mr.. Seward thai the bonding
should not be permitted. The letters Were read.
The followiSg is Mr.. Seward's:-
EPARTMENT OF TSThTE, WAsHING-oN, March
10-Sir:-I give you herewith a copy OF note
which have iu1t had the honor to receive from his
excellency, Mr TasslIa the Minister of Spain, IN
of the Meteor have applied . the District Court for
release Of that vessel under security. An applica-
favor such a preceding. 1t has been considered
wlthiShe rc-ut fOllowin~, vIz:-That the Executive
authority finds no sufficient grounds for interfering
traion OF justice. 1t is expected therefore, that
you VII take such cou.1e in regard 10 the pre3enI
question shall be lest calculated to maintain the
neutrality laws OF the United States in their full
1orce and virtue.
cm, with much re-pcct, your obsdient servant,
The Hon. Darrell s. Dickinson, United States Dis
tIict Attorney, New York.
Mr.. Courtney opposed the reea3e of the vcs
sci, occlai ilg that it would be mere eva],on of
the neutrality laws and breach OF iaith that
would result IN allowing her to cruise against
the commerce of Spain tor Chill.
Mr. EVacs argued at lenSth in favor OF the
motion. II was, he contended, a question for
the sole decision of the court. The will of the
State Depe-s sment or of the Executive cannot
properly intervene in such @ manner as to effect
the result of any judicial action. 1ne letter of
the Secretary, which Wes relied on to pre-
vent the bonding, could not justly be given any
Crch Construct on; for it was simply enioned in
that document that the regular administration
and conduct OF this case be left to the court.
The claimants were en-, tiled t. bond the VC9se',
he claimed, by statute and unde- the rules OF the
CoUrt, and cited the laws OF 1889, 1892, 1918,
and lCl7 20 show that In all cases vessel undei
seizure could be so released. The application
OF the law in the most criminal cases-those OF
ssve-trS3crJ, OF smugg terJ AID Of other perJons
under the greatest and gravcJt suspicion-we1
plain, and not to be denied. But in tlis ccse 1t
would be especially oppressive not to deliver the
vessel to her owners, who were known aud
highly respectable merchants. 1t was not that
they might evade trial, but in pursuance of the
rule OF universal interest and duty TO all con.
cerned, by which the court have determined
that property shall not be destroyed by the con-
tnuance OF litigation, when it can be replaced
by what shall answer for its value.
In conclusion, he said that TO insist, as the
Listrict-Attorney had done, that under the ''int-
nation so called, of the Government, the
CouIs should be restricted from doing its duty,
Wcs to ask that there should be judicial usurpl-
ton. Tine power of the Executive would extend
to the prompting OF the prosecuting officer, the
withdrawal OF suit, or the stoppage OF vessel
that she miyht be bonded. All interests would
thus be protected. The claim that to bond the
vc7-ol would amount to a license TO commit hos.
tliticc, wSs asserted to be without the slightest
foundation since for cause new bonds could be
imposed.
Ine District Attorney insisted upon hiS objec-
tioRs. The COuIS reserved its decsion.-M Y
Word,