The evening times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1902, 1897-04-12

Mr. Jose Congosto, Spanish consul at
Philadelphia, who was in this city re
Gently on official business, has given ex-
preston to his views concerning the ac-
ton of Julio Sanguilly in taking advantage
of the good offices OF the United states
in his behalf to obtain his release in Cuba
and afterward breaking his written prom
Use not to take service again with the in
surgents.
The consul admits that under existing
International law the United States can
not be called upon to arrest Sanguilly upon
the mere avowal of his purpose to go to
Cuba to enlist against the government, but
he does not believe that representations. by
the United States OF the character made
before, regarding the American citizen
ship and old age of Sanguilly, will be of
much avail if he is taken in arms against
the Spanish government in violation of
his pledges when released.
Mr. Congosto has become quite an expert
i'm the interna tional and municipal law
governing filibustering expeditions against
states with W hich we are at peace, and he
discussed in an interesting manner the
recent decisions OF the Supreme Court
in the cases of the Three Friends and the
Horsa.
These cases were both decided in favor
OF the United States said Mr. Congosto
.'They were fully argued in all the courts,
and the statutes governing the subject
were very carefully set forth by Chief
Justice Fuller in his decisions The point
was made in the case OF the Three Friends
that section $3.50 OF the Revised Statutes,
forbidding the fitting out or procuring to
be fitted out and arIniDg OF vessels to be
employed iii the service of any foreign
prince or state, or of any colony, district
or people, to cruise or commit hostilities'
against states with which the United
States might be at peace, did not prevent
the fitting out OF expeditions in behalf OF
bands OF insurgents, which were not recog-
nized as constituting a beIligerent state
Unfortunately for this point of view,
Chief Justice Fuller. showed that the act
of June 5, 1874, upon which the present
statute is based. was amended for the ex-
press purpose or covering 'self-styled' gov
ernments which Were not entitled to legal
recognition.
The original act mentioned merely any
foreign prince or state This was changed
by the act of March 3, 1917, SO as to in
sert the words or OF any colony, district
OF people. The Immediate occasion of the
passage of the aneRdatory act appears to
have been a communication OF December
90, 1916, from the Portugal minister TO
Secretary Monroe, informing him of the
fitting out of prfvateers at Baltimore to act
against Portugal, in case il should turn out
that that government was engaged In arm
ed conflict with the -self-styled govern
ment of Buenos Ayres-i The minister begged
the proposition to Congress of such pro-
visions Of Law as will prevent such attempts
for the future
president Madison complied with this
request, Notwithstanding the sympathy in
this country with the South American in
surgents The decision of Chief Justice
Fuller shows that he sent special mes
sage to Congress. in which he referred to
the inefficacy of existing la ws to prevent
violations of the obligation of the United
States as a nation at peace toward bel
ligerent parties and other unlawful acts
on the nigh seas by armed vessels equipped
within the wat rs Of the United States
The act was passed during the short SEES
sion ana became Ia W on MdEcH d, 4o1a IL
was passed for the express purpose OF
meeting the point made by the counsel for
the Three Friends, and Chief Justice Full
Ter decided that 1t accomplished the OBJ
jeCt that / was intended TO accomplish
The chief justice went even further than
the declaration that the added words
might cover unrecognized insurgents and
pointed out that they would not apply
aptly to recognized belligerents. That pas
sage in his decision was as follows:
Nor are the words apt IL confined to
belligerent. As argued by counsel for the
Government, an insnrgent colony under
the act is the same before as after the
recognition OF belligerency. as shown by
the instance of the colonies OF Buenos
Ayres and Paraguay, the belligerency OF
one having been recognized, but not of the
other, while the statute was plainly APP
plicable to both. Nor is district a n appro-
pirate designation of recognized power
de facto, since such a power would rep
esent rot the territory actually held, but
the territory covered by the claim OF SOW