The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1897-03-02
THE THREE FRIENDS CASE.
SUPREME COURT sUsTAINs THE
GOVERNMENTS CONTENTION.
Opinion by CHIEF Justice FULLER. who Contends
That the Vessel WINS subject 10 seizure ana
That the Libel Against Her should Not
Have Been Dismissed Harlan Di-sents.

49,
Have been Dismissed -Harian Di-sent..
wAsHINoToN. March 1.-The Supreme Court
Of the United States to-day, in the case OF tho
Cuban flibustering steamer Three Friends, re.
versed the judgment OF the court for the South
ern District OF Florida. and directed the court ia
resume control OF the vessel. which was released
on bond and stipulation. The opinion was an.
nounccd by Chief Justice Fuller, and II sustained
the contention OF the Government as set up by
Attornoy.Gcncral Harmon. Justice Harlan dis.
sented from some Of the conclusions of the court,
saying that the opinion OF the Judge who tried
the case below exactly expressed his views.
The libel In this case alleged that the vessel
was " furnished, fitted out. and armed with in
tent that she should be employed IN the service
OF a certain people. to wit. certain people then
engaged In armed resistance to the Government
OF the King of Spain in the island Of Cuba. to
cruise and commit hostilitics against the sub.
jccts. citizens. and property Of the King of
Spain, with whom the United States arc and
were at that date at peace" In the lower court
Judge Locke held that this was insufficient
under section 5.2s3. Revised Statutes, because
II was not alleged that said vessel had been
fitted out with intent that she DO employed In
the service OF a foreign prince or State. "or OF
any colony. district, or people recognized as such
by the political power OF the United States"
Chief Justice Fuller said the court agreed
with Judge Locke that tho contention that for
fixture OF the vessel under section 5,2s3 dc.
pended upon the conviction OF a person or per.
sons for doing the acts denounced was untcn-
able. The suit he said was a civil suit IN rem
for the condcmnatio Of the vessel only. and not
IA criminal prosecution.
Neutrality" said the Court. " strictly speak
Ing, consists In abstinence from any participa.
ton In n public, private. or civil war, and In i'm.
Partially Of conduct toward both parties. But
the maintenance unbrokcn Of peaceful relations
between two powers when the domestic peace OF
one OF them Is disturbed II not neutrality In the
sense in which tho word Is used when the
disturbance has acquired such head rs TO
have demanded the recognition OF belligcr.
ency: and rs II mere matter OF mu-
nicipal administration no nation can permit
unauthorized acts Of war within Ia territory in
infraction OF its sovereignty, while good faith
toward friendly nations requires their prcyen-
ton. Hence, AS Mr.. Attorney: General Hoar
act OF Congress was to secure tho performance
OF the duty Of the United states. under the law
cign powers, the act is nevertheless an net to
punish. certain offences against the United
states by fines, Imprisonment. and forfciiurcs,
and the net itself defines the precise nature OF
these offences
After discussing the exact meaning Of the
words state. colony. district, or people ns
used in section 5,2-3. Revised statutes. and trac.
Ing. tho history and purpose Of the legislation
embodied in that section, the Chief Justice said:
hsN'h ~ Nv WIN az lH'' i'uT'F W.
ploycd, admitted OF II less liberal signihcatiOn,
why should the meaning Of the words colony,
district or people be confined only to parties
recognized as bclligercnts / Neither Of these
words ia used as the equivalent 10 State, for
they We're added TO enlarge the scope Of n statute
which dread containedt that word. The statute
does not. say foreign colony, district or people,
nor was II necessary.
AS argued by counsel for the Government, an
lnsurgcnt colony. under the act, il the same be.
fore AS after the recognition OF hclligcrency, as
AkrpA nnI Paraguay fhn hplllytIpnrX Df ono
having been recognized and the other not, while
the statute plainly applied TO both; 49,,
recognized when n political struggle has at
tanned "a certain magnitude and affects the in.
instance Of maritime operations. recognition
may be compelled or the vessels Of the insur-
gents. II niolcsting other parties. may be pur-
sued as pirates.
But Il belongs to the political department to
determine when belligcrcncy shall. be recog.
nized. and It's action must be accepted according
to the terms and intentions expressed. The dis,
~tinction bet wcen recognition OF bclligerency and
the recognition of a state OF political revolt. be-
tween the recognition Of war In a material sense
and Of war in u legal sense. IL sharply illustrated
by the case before us. For hero the political de-
partment has not recognized the existence OF a
a., tdcto bclliscrcnt power engaged in hostility
with spain. but has recognized the existence OF
pms =. Wari"r; prGUsiIing before at
Cured,
Quoting the different executive proclamntions
OH the subject. the Chief Justice continued:
W. ARE thus judicially informed Of the exist.
cnce of an actual conflict OF arms. in resistance
OF the authority of II Government with which
the United States are on terms Of peace and
amity. although acknowledgment OF the insur-
gents as bclli.crcnts 10y tho political department
has not taken place; and II cannot be doubted
that this executive action has called the neu.
trality act into play. We see no Justification for
imparting unto section 5.2S3 words which II does
not contain and which would make its operation
depend upon the recognition Of belligcrency. and
while the libel might have been drawn with
somewhat greater precision, wa are OF opinion
that II should not have been dismissed.
The decree said the Chief Justice. "must
be reversed and the cause rcmandcd to the dis.
trict Court. with directions to resume custody
OF the vessel"