The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1897-03-02
THE THREE FRIENDS.
SUPREME COURT DECISION MAY
BE FAR REACHING.
Decree OF Judge Locke Reversed and
Case Remanded to the District
Court For Instructions to Resume
Custody Of the Vessel.

Washington. March 1.-The decision in
the case of the alleged flibuster Three
Friends. announced in the supreme court
of the United States today by Chief
Justice Fuller. is likely to have an i'm
portant bearing on similar itigations.
The libel in this case alleged that the
vessel was furnished. fitted out and
armed. with intent that she should be
employed in the service of a certain
people to-wit: Certain people then en-
gagged in armed resistance to the govern
men of the king of Spain. in the island Of
Cuba, to cruise and commit hoStintleS
against the subjects, citizens and property
of the king of Spain, with whom the
United States are and were at that date
ait peace
In the lower court. Judge Locke held
that this was insufficient under section
5.2S3. revised statutes. because 1t was not
alleged that said vessel had been fitted
out with intent that she be e.a-ioyed IN
the service of foreign prince. or state.
or any colony, district or people recog-
nized as such by the present power OF
the United States"
Chief Justice Fuller said the court
agreed with Judge Locke that the con-
tention that forfeiture of the vessel under
section 5,2SS depended upon the conviction
of person or persons for doLZ. the acts
Denounced. was untenable. The suit.
he said, was a civil suit for the condem-
nation of the vessel only, and was rot a
criminal prosecution
Neutrality" said the court, strictly
speaking. consists in abstinence from any
p2 ticipation in a public. private or civil
wdf and in imDartiality 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 neu-
trality in the sense in which the word
is used when the disturbance has &C
quired such head as TO have demanded
the recognition of belligerency. and as
a mere matter of municipal administra-
tion no nation can permit unauthorized
acts within its territory, infraction OF IT'S
while good falth toward
friendly nations requires their prevention
Hence. as Mr.. Attorney-General Hoar
pointed out. though the principal OBJECT
performance of the duty of the United
States under the law OF nations, IS
neutral nation in respect TO 1orelsn
powers the act is, nevertheless. an act
United States by fines. imprisonment and
forfeitures and the act itself defines the
precise nature of those offenses.
After discussing with the elaboration, or
words state. colony. district or people,
as used in section 5,2S3. United States
revised statutes. and tracing the history
and purpose of the legislation embodied
n that section. the chief justice said:
Even if the word states, as previously
employed admitted of a less liberal
signfication. why should the meaning of
he words colony district or people be
confined only to parties recognized as
Neither of these words is
lsed as the equivalent to state, for they
we're added to enlarge the scope of
statute which already contained that
word The statute does not say foreign
colony, district or people, nor was II
LAS argued by counsel for the govern
nent, an insurgent colony. under the |
ct. is the same before as after the recog- |
iition of belligerency. as shown by the |
Instance of the colonies of Buenos Ayres /
nd Paraguay, the belligerency of one |
.aving been recognized and the other |
lot, while the statute plainly applies to /
10Th.
'Belligerency." said the chief justice, ''is |
when a political struggle has
ttained a certain magnitude and effects
he interests of the recognizing power. |
nd in the instance of maritime opera
ions. recognition may be compelled, or
he vessels of the insurgents. If molest-
ng other parties. may be pursued as
irates.
But it belongs to the political depart
lent to determine when belliSerency shall
e recognized. and its action must be ac-
epted according to the terms and condi-
ions expressed. The distinction between
ecognition and belligerency End the rec
gnition of a state of political revolt be-
geen the recognition of war in ma
srial sense is sharply illustrated by the
ase before u.s. For here. the political
has not recognized the ex-
itence of a de facto belligerent power en-
aged in hostility with Spain. but has
ecognized the existence of insurrection-
ry warfare prevailing before, at the
me and since this forfeiture was in
lrred'
Quoting the different executive procla-
lations on the subject. the chief justice
1--WE are thus judicially informed of the
xistence of an actual conflict of arms;
the existence of the authority of a gov
with which the United States
re on terms of peace and amity, al
Rough Acknowledgement of the insur-
snts as belligerents by the present ad-
has not taken place; and
cannot be doubted that this executive
ction has called the neutrality act into
ay. We see no justification for i'm
1rting into section 2S3 words which
does not contain. and which would
axe its operation depend upon the rec
snition of belligerency. and while the
Del might have been drawn with some
kat greater precision. we are of the
Union that 1t should not rave been dis
issed.
'The decree" said the chief justice
cust be reversed and the cause re-
anded TO the district court for direc-
pms to resume custody of the vessels"
---~s-< 80 -
The Canadian Pacific. {
March 1.-The Canadian Pa {
ic cornpanv will give notice tn tho