The Wichita daily eagle. [volume] (Wichita, Kan.) 1890-1906, 1897-03-02
ward friendly nations requires their pre-

/
! Sent;on.'
Hence. the court held that while the
| &C; was intended 10 secure neutral action
| il was nevertheless an act 10 punish GER
| tain offenses against the United States
| by fines, etc, defining the precises ma
tlre OF these offenses. The chief justice
reviewed the origin OF the statute IN
question, saying it was brought forward
| from the laws Of 1918, 1917 and 1924. he
said that the law mad originally baen
drafted at Washington's instigation and
that the words colony. district Of peo-
pie" on the proper construction Of
which the case hinged, were inserted IN
1918 al the instance Of the Spanish min
lister, who suggested that the South
American colonies in revolt and not rec
ognized as independent Nigh be includ-
ed in the word state"
The court held that the words must
necessarily be held applicable 70 body
OF insurgents associated together in
common political enterprise and carrying
on hostilities against the parent country
IN the effort to achieve independence, al
though recognition of belligerency had
not been accorded"
Neither Of the words, the opinion con-
tinues, used as equivalent of the word
stale" and the WORD people" in the
connection in whic: it is used, must ap-
oil; 20 a body Of persons less than state
or nation, and this meaning would be sat
isfed by considering il as applicable to
aay consolida led political body, while the
word people" may mean the entire body
OF thu inhabitants Of a state; or the state
or nstion collectively in its political ca
pacity; or the ruling power Of the coun-
Try. its meaning in this branch or the
section, taken IN connection with the
words colony and district In our
Judgment applying TO any insurgent or
insurrectionary body Of people acting To-
getner, undertaking and conducting hos
Titles, although its belligerency has been
recognized. Any other conclusion rests
on The unreasonable assumption that the
act was to remain Intellectual unless the
government should incur the restraints
and liabilities relative 10 an acknowledge
ment OF belligerency.
Chief Justice Fuller continued by say
ing that Il belonged to the political de-
partment TO determine when belliSerency
should be recognized, but that there was
q sharp distinction between the recogni-
ton of belligerency and the recognition
OF political revolt. as was shown IN this
case. il which while there had been no
recognition of belligerency there had
still been many proclamations and mes
sagas by the president recognizing the
Cuban instruction and an actual conflict
of arms in resistance OF the authority of
a government, with which the United
States - on terms of peace and amity, al
though acknowledgment of belligerency
bad not taken place.
Concluding with this branch OF the
case, he SAID: 1--WE see no justification
for importing into section 5,2S3 words
which il does not contain and which does
not make its operation depend upon the
recognition of belligerency, and while the
libel might have been drawn with some
what greater precision, we are Of the
ouinion that 3 should not have been dis
missed"
The judgment OF the district court OF
Florida was reversed and the case re-
maaded, with directions 10 resume Gus
tody of the vessel which had been re-
leased en- t0nd.
Justice Harland dissented. saying that
there was nothing in the case to justify
the court in straining the statute. as it
must, to suit the case. II is said that
he fully concurTed in the opinion Of the
district judge of the Seventh district of
Florida in refusing the libel OF the
Three Friends