Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1896-05-19
HORsA EXPEDITION CASE.
Decision May he Expected Monday
Statements of Counsel

WASHINGTON. ID. c., May is.-The
Supreme Court of the United States held
an extra session to-day, for the purpose
of hearing argument in the matter OF the
Hotsa-Cuban expedition. growing out OF
the conviction of ]. ii. S. Wiborg, Jens
+. Peterson, and Hans Johansen, citi-
gems OF Denmark. in the District Court
Of the United States for the Eastern Dis
trict of Pennsylvania. for violation of the
neutrality laws of the United States.
They appealed from the conviction TO the
Supreme Court OF the United States. and,
pending that. were admitted to bail.
Two weeks ago Attorney General Har-
mon moved TO advance the cause for a
hearing at this term of court, and as
the cell OF the docket for the term closed
on the sth instant, the granting OF the mo-
ton necessitated the session of to-day.
w. Hallett Phillips. for the appellants, OPP
posed the advancement asked far by the
government, suggesting that II be heard
at the October term next year. In re-
Spouse TO his objection. the Attorney
General made use of an expression which
was largely quoted at the time as con-
veying President Cleveland's belief that
tho Cuban war would be over within six
months. What he said was that If the
case was permitted TO go over until fan
II might "a well take it's usual course;
that the summer was the time when SINH
lar expeditions would be fitted out, unless
restrained by the decision OF the Su-
preme Court OF the United States.
After the Court had considered the an
nouncement Of opinions. but two hours
OF the days session remained. and IL was
agreed by Mr.. w. Hallet Phillips. for the
appellants. and Sollcltor-General Conrad.
for the Government. to abandon oral ar
gumenr and submit the case on the print
cd briefs. This was agreeable to the
Court, and IL adjourned until Monday
next. when a decision mSy be expected
In their brief. counsel for the appellant
express regret. that. In case of SO much
Importance. the district judge who pre-
sided at the trial, should not have ex-
hibited that impartiaiity so characteristic
OF the administration OF Justice IN the
Federal tribunals. The address OF the
judge. they say, was an undisguised at
tempt. only too successful, to Influence
the jury TO find the defendants guilty by
unwarranted limitations and by express
sions unsupported by evidence Counsel
assert that assuming the case TO be, as
stated, for the government. such state
or facts does. not constitute military
expeditiDa.' The men had a right. so
far as our laws are concerned. 10 toin
the Cuban army. and 10 90 10 Cuba for
that purpose. either singly or together.
Nor were they forbidden by our laws 10
convey 10 such army munitions OF war.
The passengers on the Horsa were not
armed after they left this country, ana
Old not proceed 10 the scene OF the insur-
tection as an organized body. capable OF
ieyying war. The statement of the Judge.
that they were armed. Is a finding OF
TACT not warranted by any evidence.
On the other hand. the Attorney Gene
raj and his associates contended that the
main question presented In the case was
narrow one-namely. the meaning Of
the phrase military expedition or enter
prisa" They submitted that an "enter-