The Roanoke times. (Roanoke, Va.) 1897-1977, 1897-02-16
IN A HIGH
TRIBUNAL.
The Case of the Three Friends
in the Supreme Court.
BEGUN ON AN APPEAL
FROM THE DECISION OF JUDGE
LOCKE, OF FLORIDA, WHICH RE.
LEASED FROM CUSTODY THE
LITTLE OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES
CONTEND SIZE SHOULD BE RE-
handed TO THE MARSHAL.

ciSlol reached TWO weeks ago. when the
usual February recess began the su preme
court OF the United States retsSembi to-
day to hear argument on the appeal of
the United States from the decision of
Judge Locke, of the United States court
in Florida, in the case of the Three
Friends, the steamer seized last Novem-
Der for engaging i'll Cuban tilibusterinp
movements.
Caldcron Carlisle, counsel for Spain.
asked and obtained leave to file II brief in
the case as amicus curiae stating that the
attorney general and Mr. Phillips, the
latter representing the appellee, had
courteously stated that they had no oh
lection. Mr.. Phillips said he had not seen
the brief, and while he had no objection
to the counsel for the Spanish govern
ment filing it. he desired permission to
reply to it, if he found it desirable Or
necessary to do So This was granted
ana the argument proceeded
II. Is. Whitney, acting for the attorney
general, reviewed the preliminary pro.
ceedng, resulting in the release of the
vessel under stipulation and bond for the
libel of the government.
~ leadin" question, he said, was: Do
the words colony, district, or people"
in the section under which the libel was
filed, include insurrectionary bodies like
belligerency. technically speaking has rot
been recognized by The executive depart
ment of our Government?
He contended that such bodies were so
. included, and quoted an opinion to that
effect by Attorney General, lIoar upon a
former Cuban insurrection, and this con-
struction held, he said, until judge
Iocke's decision had been acuuiesccd in.
This decision was the first which put
upon section 52S3 the construction that
the colony, district or people, in whose
service the vessel was to he emploved
must be recognized us such by the United
States, and this decision directly over
ruled his own decision in 1856 in the
case of steamer City of Mexico
Proceeding, Mr.. Whitney made the
points that, first, the internal evidence of
the statute was opposed to the theory
that II recognition of belligerency was
necessary to the operation of the statute.
Second, the history of the statute is Old.
posed to the theory Third, if any eyecu.
tive recognition is necessary to put the
statute in operation that recognition had
been given when the libel was fled
Fourth, the stipulation and bond for the
release of the libel were not authorized
by the Law, and the vessel should be re
manded to the custody Of the marshal
- Discussing the first point, Mr.. Whitney
called attention to the serious conse-
quenceS of recognition of the Beligerencv
of the insurgent body: traffic i'm arms
and muntion must be stopped: claims
for reparaton on account of damages
suffered by citizens of the United States
could not he enforced and merchantmen
must submit to the rights of blockade,
visitation, search and seizure of contia
band articles OH high seas.
w HnlIatt folJ
of the Three Friends. He argued that
the position of the lower court was that
the statute was not violated. because
when the act mentioned the word ''peo-
pie" it meant one of the denominations
applied by Congress to II foreign power
The same construction, he asserted, had
also been given to the word by the execu-
tive and Congress. Meeting the point
made by the Governments counsel that
il II recognition of belligerency was essen
tial to the operation of the statute it had
been sufficiently made ut the time the
libel was.filed. He said that the procalna
lions of the President relied upon did not
lend countenancc TO the position of the
Government, for they did not recognize IL
public war existing in Cuba. much less n
government or new power asserting Is
sovereignty.
The opinion of Attorney General Hoar
quoted by counsel for the United States
dld not meet the present case, for he had
different question presented to him. No
argument could nropcrly be made on the
ground that the United States had any
duties to perform other than to those
specified in its legislation, or that citi-
Iens could be proceeded against crmi-
nally except as thus provided. Neither
the United States nor Spain admitted
there existed state of be!ligerency, and
in the absence of that admission there
could not exist any obligations of neu-
trality.
The argument for the steamer was con
;inued by ~. w. Cockrell, of Florida, at
torney for owners of the vessel He de-
voted himself largely to the CONSTRUCTION
OF the statute. Ii was penal, he said and
IN enforcing it the Government could not