The Norfolk Virginian. [volume] (Norfolk, Va.) 186?-189?, 1897-02-16
OR PIRATE?
The Case OF the Three Friends Comes Up in
the Supreme Court Of Appeals.
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL ARGUES
A Fornier OpiMion Quoted-'Chc Gov.
Other Stde-NOt u Cnsc of Prize
They G0lstGtlu Harmon Argues 1t
WINS Piracy.

with the decision reached two weeks
ago. when the usual February recess
began. the Supreme Court of the United
states reassembleu to-day to hear ar
sument upon the appeal OF the United
States from the judgment OF Judge
Locke. OF the United States Court In
FLORIDA in the case Of the Thrcc Friends
the steamer seized last November for
engaging in Cuba ilibustcring move
me1ltS
Mr.. Caldron CARLISLE. counsel for
Spain. asked and obtained leave to iile
4 brief in the case as alncuS curiac
stating that the attorney general ana
Mr.. Philips, the latter representing the
appellee. had courteously stated that
they had no objection. MIR Philips said
nc had not seen the brief, and While he
had no objection TO the counsel for the
Spanish government filing 1t, he desired
permission to reply to It. IL he found it
desirable or necessary to do so This
was granted and the argument pro
cecdcd
WHAT ARE 1NSURRECTIONAR
BODIES.
Il. II. Whitney, assistant attorney
%eneral. reviewed the, preliminary pro-
|ceedings resulting in the lower court
in the release Of the vessel under stlpu-
latinn and bond from the libel OF the
government. A leading question iii the:
ease he said, was "do the words Cold
ny. District or People" in the sesiion
under, which the libel was hlea, in
tlllde inSurrectiOnary bodies like thS
present republic Of Cuba whose belig-
|erencv. technically speaking, has not
vet been recognized by tic executive
"epartment OF our governments"
THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CASE.
~. -. g
Mr.: ". Hallett Phillips followed in
behalf of the Three Friends. He ar
"ued that the position of the lower court
was correct; that the statute was not
violated because when the act men
lloncd the word people" it meant one
OIL the denominations applied by Con-
"ress TO IL foreign power The same con
Struct!on, he asserted, had also been
"iFen to the words by the Executive
ana Congress. Meeting the point made
by the government counsel that. If n re-
coenition OF beligerency was essential
10 the operation of the statute II had
been sufficiently made at the time the
libel was filled, he said proclama tions
or The President relied upon did not
lend countennnce to the position Of tho
government. for they did not recognize
public war existing in Cuba, much
less a government or new power as
serting it's sovereignty. The opinion OF
Attorney General Hoar quoted bv
counsel for the United States, did not
meet the present case, for he had q
ullferent question presented to him No
argument could properly be made on
the ground that the United States had
any duty to perform other than those
snecified in its legislation, or that cIti-
zens could be proceeded against crimi-
nally. except as thus provided. Neither
the United States nor Spain admitted
that there existed a state of belliserency
a RI
there could not exist any obligation Of
neutrality.
NOT 4 CASE OF PRIZE.
The argument for the steamer was
continued by Mr.. a. w. Cockrell of
FLORIDA. attorney for the owners Of the
vessel. He devoted himself largely to
the construction of the statute It was
nenal. he said, and inferring it. the
government could not eliminate q single
TACT or circumstance required by the
statute to make out the forfeiture pro-
vlded for. In seeking. under the libel
IN question, to make out q case Of for
feiture independently of and without
reference TO the ascertained guilt OF
the offending persons, he said, the gov
ernment was forced to say that the
vessel might be liable to condemnation
under the statute and the offending
persons acquitted The proceeding
against the Three Friends, he said, was
not q case OF prize, but based on a sec
tion which made the criminal intent of
the OFFENDING persons an essential in
sredient Of their conviction and an cs
sential ingredient OF the forfeiture of
the vessel. The libel he asserted was
deficient in respect Of allegations cover
ing these points.
a FORAIEE OPINION QUOTED.
lie contended that such bodies were SO
included and quoted an opinion to that
effect by Attorney General Ioar upon
Il former Cuban insurrection, and this
construction held. he said, until Judge
L1ocl1es decision had been acquiesced 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 be employed
must be recognized as such by the politi-
cal power Of the United States and this
decision, 1t was stated. directly over
ruled his own decision In 1856 in the case
Of the steamer City Of Mexico
THE POINTS IN THE CASE.
Proceeding, Mr.. Whitney made the
points that, Q). the Internal evidence of
the statute was opposed to the theory
that the recognition Of belligerency was
necessary to the operation OF the sta
tute; (2), the history OF the statute IS
opposed to the theory; (N. If any eXecl1-
tive recognition IS necessary to put the
statute in operation, that recognition
had been given when the libel was filed:
~, the stipulation and bond for the re-
lease Of the vessel were not authorized