The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1897-03-02
THREE FRIENDS CASE.
.yUDsF IOChf's DECISION RI.
Yrx<fD ~ mr. SJPRLME COthi.
Tn. p,,,lnc,ion Bstwoep Recognition o'
BeilIgsrency and the Recognition o'
state OF roliticsi Revolt.

7I mo TT-T
three Fricnds. reversed tac Judgmcnt OK
lie CONN., for the S0atncrn bis,rct "
q FLORIDA. and directed tne court 10 r.
sum. control OF tho vessel, which was
released ON bond and stipulation.
The opinion was announced ~ Ihi'i
Iustiec ruler. aud 10 sustained the CON
icntion OF the Government. as set UP
bv Attorney General Harmon, 10 the
fullest extent. Justice Harlan dlssen.a
from some OF the conclusions OF '-e
court. saying that the opinion OF t"e
Judge VINO tried the case pe'," eAd'''
expressed his Views.
Inc decision is likely 20 have an I'M
porfan: bearing on similar litigation.
THE LIBEL.
The libel in this case alleged lh"t ''c
vessel was furnished. ntied out, anu
armed. with intent that she should Oe
employed in the service or ''''"''
peoplc-to-wit.. certain people th'h va
eaera IN armed resistance 90 the Tow
eminent Of the King of spain ID tle
island Of Cuba. 10 cruise ana commit
nosf,i,ics against the subjects. citizens.
and property Of the King OF Spain, WIN
whom the United States are ana were
at that date at peace.
In the lower court. Judge Locke htiu
that this was insufficient, under Sect'h
b2x2 Revised Statutes. because II was
not alleged that said vessel hdd pee"
fitted out with intent that she DC en-
ployed in the service OF foreign prince
or state. or OF any colony. district or
people. recognized as such by 'he pc
ntical power OF the United states.
cbisf Justice Fuller said the court
agreed with Judge Locke that the con-
tcntion that forfeiture OF the vessel un-
der Section 52Si depended upon the con-
yiction Of person or persons Tor DONG
the acts denounced. was untenaDie. Inc
suit. h, SAID. was a civil suit, in rem
FOR the condemnation of tho vessel only,
and was not a criminal prosecution.
"Neutrahiy.' said the court. strictly
speaking. consists in abstinence from any
participation in "a public, private, or ciVll
war and IN lmp8rtiahty OF conduct cow
ard both parties. but the maintenance
unbrokcn, of peaceful relations between
two Powers when the domestic peace oil
one Of them rs disturbed is not neu-
traIity in the sense in which Tie word Is
used when the disturbance has acquired
such head as 10 D.. We demanded the re-
cognltiOn of bclecrency and. ~ mere
matter OF municipal administration no
nation can permit unauthorized acts OF
war within its territory In infractoa OF
iis sovereignty. While good faith low
ards friendly nations requires their pre-
vention Hence. ass Mr. Attorney Geier-
al IIoar pointed out. though the princi-
pal object OF the act of Congress WAS 10
secure the performance Of the duty OF
the United States. under the law Of ma
lions. rs a neutral nation i'm respect OF
Foreign Powers. the act is nevertheless
an act to punish certain offences against
the United States. by fines. Imprisonment
and fOrfeitures. and the act itself defines
~. of
RECOGNITION
After discussing with much elaboration
OF technical detail the exact meaning of
the words State. colony. district. or peo-
pie" as used in section 52s3. United
State Revised Statutes. and tracing the
history and purpose Of the legislation
embodied in that section. the Chief JUS
tiis said.
Even if the word States as previous
" employed admitted Of a less liberal
Specification why should the meaning OF
the words colony. district. or people
he confined only to parties recognized as
bellieerents? Neither OF these words IS
used as the equivalent TO state for they
were added 10 enlarge the scope of
statute which already contained that
word. Tie statute does not say FOR
eign colony. district, or people nor was
IL necessary.
AS l~gued by counsel for The Gov
eminent an insurscnt colony. under the
act. is the same before and after the
recognition of belligerency as shown by
the instance Of the colonies Of Bucnos
Ayres and Paraguay. the bclligerency of
bne having been recognized and the
other not while the statute plainly APP
plies 10 both
"Bellieoroncy" said the Chief Justice.
is recognized when q political struggle
has attained a certain magnitude and
affects the interests OF The recognizing
power: and in the instance of maritime
operations. recognition may be compell-
ed. or the vessels OF the Insurgents. if
molesting other parties. may be pursued
"a pirates
But. II belongs 10 the political de-
partment TO determine when belligerency
shall be recognized. and IT'S action must
DO accepted according 20 the terms and
intentions expressed. The distinction be-
tween recognition of beligerency. and
the recognition OF a state Of political
revolt, between the recognition OF war in
material sense. is sharply Illustrated by
tho case before us For here the poll
tioal department has not recognized the
existence of de facto belligerent power
engaged IN hostility with Spain. but has
recognized the existence OF insurrectiou-
airy warfare prevailing before. at the
time and since. this forfeiture was in
CURED"
JUDlClALLY INFORMED
Quoting the different Executive procla-
nations on the subject. the Chief Justice
says:
we are thus judiciously Informed Of
tho existence OF an actual conflict OF
arms IN resistance OF the authority OF a
government with which the United States
are on terms OF peace and amitv al
though acknowledgment Of the insur-
gents as belligerents by the political de-
partments has not taken place. and 1t
cannot he doubted that this Executive
action has called the netrality act into
play We see no Justification for inn
porting into section 52S3 words which
II does not contain. aud which would
make it's operation depend upon the recog-
milton OF belligerency. and while the libel
might have been drawn with somewhat
greater precision. We are of the opinion
that IL should not have been dismissed"
The decree" said the Chief Justice.
must bc reversed and the cause re-
mandcd TO the District Court with direc-
tion 10 resume custody OF the vessel
INSURANCE LAW VOID.
The statute Of the State Of Louisiana
prohibiting under penalty OF $1,000 citi-
zens OF the State from doing any act I'm
connection with the issuing OF policy
Of insurance by company which has
not cOnfOrmed 10 the requirements for
doing business in that State. was to-day
declared by the Supreme Court Of the
United States TO be- unconstitutional.
Justice Shiras. speaking FOR the Supreme
Court. said the statute was "A cOnstitu-
tional infringement upon the liberty OF
the citizen and the Judgment Of the
state Courts was therefore reversed.