New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1872-04-25
RESOLUTION OF MR.. BANKS
THE MEXICAN REVOLUTION EXPIRING
CINCINNATI CONVENTION
PREPARATIONS THERE COMPLETED
The CHAIR OF JOHN ADAMS
CONGRESS.


of Claims-Goat Island-Dr. Howard's
imprisonment Discussed-Banks' Reso-
luton on DR.. Howard.
WASHINGTON, April 24.-Herschel v.
johnson and F. P. Stanton argued before
the sub Committee on Ways and Means in
favor of the bill, referred to that committee,
refunding the cotton tax. The argument
was upon the uncOnstitutiOnality of the
tax The whole amount collected was $685.
100000. .-5.
Upon seating Mr.. Ransom. of North Caro-
lima, Mr.. Thurman congratulated the Sem
ate that for the first time Aiuce 1861 every
seat was filled.
Mr.. Sumner presented petition, signed
by $4,000, against an amendment to the
constitution acknowledging God.
Abbott, defeated contestant for North
age to date.
The deficiency bill was resumed.
A motion to table Mr.. Morrill's amend
ment, limiting the jurisdiction Of the Court
of Claims regarding captured and aban-
doned property was lost by 25 to 25, when
Vice President Colfax voted nay.
Mr.: Alcorn proposed an amendment to
| Mr.. Morrilrs amendment, making it more
| generous to the people South. which was
discussed to adjournment.
| Ho,sse-A bill giving half of Goat Island
| to the Cectral Pacific railroad for termi-
| nal depot upon such terms as a commission
appointed by the President may prescribe,
passed.
discussed at great length. No action.
| The following is Mr.. Banks resolution re-
| portad from the Committee on Foreign At
| fairs, and now pending in the House.
Mr.. Banks called up the report of the
Committee on Foreign Affairs in the case of
| DR.. Howard, with the resolutions thereon,
| as follows: ...
| WHEREAS. John Emilio Howard has,
| after one years Imprisonment and trial by
! a military court-martial, been convicted of
| completely in an insurrection against the
| Spanish government in the island OF Cuba,
| and upon said conviction has been trans
ported to penal colony of Spain for the
! term of eight years, from which conviction,
sentence and punishment an appeal for pro-
| lection to the government OF the United
| States has been made; and
Whereas. 1t appears, first, that said How.
| ard was native born citizen of the United
| States; second, that he never ren0unced his
| allegiance as such citizen, but, on the con-
| trary. has claimed to be and has been en-
rolled by the officers of the government Of
| the United States as a citizen of the United
States; third, that it is not shown by any
| form of proof that he ever became by any
| act a citizen of the government Of Spain;
| and
Whereas, It further appears that his trial,
| sentence and punishment have been in dis
regard and violation of his undoubted
| rights as citizen Of the United States, un-
| der the constitution and laws thereof and
the treaty of October 81, 1895, between the
United States and Spain therefore. be it
Resolced, That, in the Judgment of this
| House, the said John Emilio Howard was
! and is a citizen of the United States by
| birth and continued and uninterrupted
choice, and as such entitled to all and every
protection from this government; and, IN
the opinion of this House, the President
should promptly demand his unconditional
release, and the restoration Of his property,
which has been confscated to the use OF
the Spanish government.
Mr.. Banks stated the facts in the case,
claiming that DIR. Howard was an American
citizen, and that he should be tried before a
court Of law on any charge preferred against
him, and not by military court-martial.
MIR. Perry, OF Ohio, inquired whether it
was not incumbent upon those who claimed
that DR.. Howard was not a Spanish sub
iect, after residing in Cuba continuously for
twenty eight years, to show that fact.
Mr.. Banks replied that the Spanish gov
ernment was bound to show that this man
was a subject to its laws. The committee
claimed that DIR. Howard, having been
domiciled there, would be obliged to obey
the laws of the Spanish government in the
island Of Cuba, and was liable to punish
ment if he did not, but he had right to be
tried by the judicial tribunal, and not by a
military court; but he had been SO tried in
time Of profound peace, when there was
no necessity for resorting to that tribunal.
Mr.. Amber, member Of the Committee
on Foreign Affairs, argued against the resO-
luton. The question was whether DR..
Howard, at the time of his seizure by the
Spanish government, was a citizen OF the
United States. If he was, then he conceded
that there had been violation of his rights
as citizen in the matter Of his trial, and
that the Spanish government was bound,
under the treaty of 1895, to furnish tne
United States government with copy
Of the record OF the proceedings, whlcn IL
had not done. His own convictions were
that citizenship had not only its rghts' put
its duties. and he was not aware that during
the late civil war in this country this man
had assumed to have or to discharge any
duty TO the government OF the United
STATES His father, a Frenchman, had
e1niorated to this country in 1903, was
natnralized in Philadelphia, where DR..
Howard was born, but had subsequently
settled in Cuba as a colonist, and had re-
ceived lands from the Spanish gov
:, ernment as colonist for himself,
his wife and each of his children.
His father has thus lost this right as a
naturalized citizen, and if so, his minor
children lost their rights at the same time.
No lawyer would dispute that proposition.
He argued that this government held to
the right Of expatriation, the amicus
n,anendi was always to be inferred from a
heightened residence in another country.
Mr. w. &. Roberts asked Mr.. Amber