The Roanoke times. (Roanoke, Va.) 1897-1977, 1897-03-02
Supreme Court Remands the Three
Friends to Custody.
THE RULING OF THE FLORIDA
JUDGE REVERSED By THE
HIGHEST TRIBUNAI.-THE LIT.
TIE VESSEL WILL NOT BE AL
LOWED TO HELP THE CAUSE OF
THE STRUGGLING CUBANS-JUS
T1CE HARLAN DISSSENTED.

court of the United States 60 dav in the
case of the Cuban filibustering steamer
Three Friends, reversed the Judgment of
the court of :he Southern district of Flor.
ida and directed the court to resume con-
troll of the vessel, which was released on
Dond anu stipulation. The opinion was
announced by Chief Justice Fuller and
sustained the contenticn of the Govern.
:nent as set up by Attorney General Hal
mon to the fullest extent Justice Uar.
lan disSented from some of the conclu-
slons oil the court, saying that the opin-
ion OF the judge who sriei the case below
exactly expressed his views.
The decision is likely to have un import
ant bearing on similar litigation.
The libel i'll this case alleged that the
vessel was Furnished, fitted out and
armed, with intent that she should be
employed in the service of n certain Deo.
pie, to wit, certain people then engaged in
armed resistance To the government of
the 6lng of Spain, in the island of Cuba;
to cruise and commit hostilities against
me subjects, citizens and property of the
king OF Spain with whom the United
States are, and were ut that date, ut
peace.
In the lower court Judge Locke held
that this was invalid, because it was not
alleged that said vessel had been fitted
ont with intent that she he employed in
the service of II foreign prince or state, or
or any colony, district or people recor.
niZed as such by the political power of
the United States,h
Chiet Justice Fuller said chat the court
agreed with Judge Locke that the conten.
ton that forfeiture of the vessel under
Section 12S3 depended upon the conviction
of person for doing the acls denounced
was untennble. The suit, he said, was Il
civil suit in rem, for the. condemnation of
the vessel only, and was not IL criminal
prosecution.
'Neutrality,' said The court. s.strictlv
speaking, consists in abstinence from any
participation in public private or civil
war, and in partality of conduct to.
ward both parties, but the maintenance,
unbroken, of peaceful relations between
two powers when the domestic peace of
one of them is disturbed is not neutrality
II che sense in which the word is used
when the disturbance has acquired such
head us to have demanded the recogni ton
OF belligerency, and. us II mere matter of
municipal administration no nation can
permit unauthorized acts of war within
It's territory in infraction Of SOVEREIGNTY.
while good faith towards friendly nations
requires their prevention. Hence, as Mr..
Attorney General lloar pointed oft,
Though the principal object of the act of
Congress was to secure the performance
of the duty of the United States under the
law oil nations us IL neutral ration in re.
Spect OF foreign powers, the act is never
theless an act to punish certain offenscs
against the United States, by fines, i'm.
prisonment and forfetures, and the act
itself de lines the precise nature of these
oilenses''
After discussing with much elaboration
nF Ittnif n1 Il 81, n.
the words Estate, colony, district, or peo-
pie" as used in section 1888, United
states revised statutes, and tracing the
history and purpose of the legislation EN-.
bodied i'll that section, the chief Justice
said:
even if the word State us previously
employed admitted of a less liberal sig.
MITIGATION why should the meaning of the
words Colony, district, or people he
confined only TO parties recognized rs bel.
ligerents? Neither of these words is used
rs the equivalent to state, for they were
added TO enlarge tine scope of a. stntute
which already contained that word The
statute does not say foreign colony, dis
trict, or people, nor was it necessary
AS argued by counsel for the Govern.
ment an insurSent colony, under the act.
Is the same before and after recognition
ol belligerency, rs shown by the instance
of the colonies of Buenos Ayres and
Paraguay, the belligerency of one having
been recognized and the other not while
the statute plainly applies to both
"Belligererency, said the chief Justice,
lis recognized when Il political struggle
has attained II certain magnitude and
affects the interests of the recognizing
powers; and in the instance of maritime
operations, recognition may be compelled,
or the vessels of the insurgents. if mo-
testing other parties, may be pursued as
pirates.
but it belongs to the political depart
ment to determine when helligercncy
shall be recognized and its action must
be accepted according To the terms and
Intentions expressed The distinction
between recognition of belligerency and
the recognition of a state of political re
volt, between the recognition of war in u
! ,s..l far al