The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1897-03-02
;,alEE FRIENDS DECISION.
I. ,.,Iae Of the Lover Court Is
Reversed.
II, oF The VESSEL SUSTAINED.
s..tes Supreme Court
~ rnnold the Decision Rem
''' s !, by Judge Locke

-, March 1.-The United states
vi'n'Ds s',rt today rendered an opinion
y \. case Of the steamer ihfee ,, rr,enu .;
p " x S last by the collector Oh
rlisa ss ~, ,he district of st. Johns fia''
s'' ss.s',ed to the United States under Sec
y '' ~, d the Revised Statutes known as
tlc' ~. ,,,,v act. The opinion fully sus-
~ ,se position OF the government re-
un.S ,hs Judgment of the district court
's'as .ou,berp district Of Florida.
Justice Fuller delivered the opin-
Wv i, court, He defined neutrality to
r abstinence from any participation
GO ,,,Ic priyate or civil war and an I'M
a..,s,Ity Of conduct toward both parties
{. 4. maintenance, unbroken' OF peaceful
' 49,, bstween the two powers when the
'-ss,c peace of one OF them is disturbed
- neutral in the sense in which the
4, i. used when the disturbance has &C
-, such head as to have demanded the
ss,r,tIon Of Cuban belligerency.
=, this he added the remark: AS
NATTER Of municipal administration
nsN MAJ an narn,it unauthorized acts of
y. xithip its territory In infractior of
w t nn.h while rood faith toward
s ~ na.,ons requires their prevention"
nSlus na" no,,rt held that while the act
bay ~. IN secure neutral action, 1t
~ aso,tbeless an act to punish certain
y, m..' ssslnst the United States, defining
'.s $50 nature of these offenses. The
~ III rs ;ss,Ice reviewed the origin of the
vs. s...s,s IN question. SAYING it was brought
s,s,M from the laws Of 1918, 1917 and
Ia 10 said that the law had originally
~, ~, DATED at Washington since the insti-
,s,ios and that the words colony, district
!, rsoole.o on the proper construction OF
sssh the case hinged, We're inserted In
ma Al fife instance OF the Spanish minis
\. who suggested that the South American
alupes in revolt, and not recognized as in-
Avsudent might not be included in the
vo-a state"
The court held that the word must IGc-
ssrily be held applicable to a body OF III
unsnis associated together in common
Political enterprise and carrying on nostiI-
| Rs against the parent country III the ei-
ht 10 achieve independence, ai'nousn rec
sllion OIL bei'lsefehcy hau not peeh &C
r;del'
Neither Of the words tho opinion con-
! tirts, Is used as equivalent To the word
sa's and inc WORD people III inc conhec-
va 10 which II was used must Apply
BODY OF persons less IMAM state or
lxn and tnis meaning would De SANS
w y CONSIDERING u az applicants TO any
mxelaa'ed political pody' Whiio the
wi people. may mean the entira pody
nhioltants OF state or tho state or
Liz; q the ruling power OF tho country,
= nanlns IN this branch OF the section,
na district covers. IN our 1udg-
HA any lnsursent or lnsurrectionary
Ma people acting together, undertake
Ia conauctihs nos'liities although
ssays mas no. peeh recognized any
uaeaslon rests on tho unreasonable
ri a, UNA. inc ac' was 10 remain IN
nsss the government should in
sa ats anu ilaDiiltiea relative TO
~ yaeashleht Oh beiliserency.
~ ss'iee ruler continued by say
o s 10 inc poiiticai depart
4, ,''s,, a.Gosn,zeo, bnt there was q
3sg,ss netun between tho recognition
M ,.s.,. anu inc recognition OF pol
Al ', w, ~ waa shown in this case. in
ID ballivarono, "s ~ pesh ho ivcohIl-
nv puclsna t;or'' W., 'u,'o 'iau sun p.eh
:s.sn, reoorniz,n, t,a ' r,'1,s. ~ .uo