New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1897-03-02
THE GOVERNMENT UPHELD.
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN
THE CASE OF THE THREE
FRIENDS
THE FLORIDA COURT DIRECTED TO RESUME CON
troll or THE ALLEGED FIILBusTER-
OTHER DECISIONS ANNOUNCED.

NeSScl
and armed. with intent that she should be en-
Moved in the service OF a certain poole to wit.
certain people then engaged IN armed resistance 10
the Government OF the King Of Spain, in the iSiahu
of Cuba to cruise and commit hostiiitles against '
subjects citizens ard property of the KING OF SPAN
with whom the United States are and were al 'n"'
date az peace" 800
In tho lower court Judge Locke he'd that this
was insufficient under Section 5,?sS Revised stat
utes, because It noh alleged that sald VeSse-
had been fitted out with intent that she De EN-
ployed in the service of foreign prince or state
or of any colony district people recognized a.
such by the political power of the United states
Chief Justice Fuller said the court agreed WITH
Judge Locke that the contention that forfeiture o.
the vessel under Section 5.2S3 depended upon the
conviction Ct a person persons Tor DOING uie
acts denounced was untenabe. The suit. he SAID
was a civil suit in rem FOR the condemnation OF
the vessel only was not criminal prosecution
Neutrality" said the Court, strictly speaking
consists in abstinence from any participation IN
public private or civil war. and in importantly Oh
conduct toward both parties. But the maintenance
uubroken Of peaceful relations between two Powers
when the domestic peace OF one OF them Il ui9'uoo
is not neutrality In the sense in which the WI"
is used when the disturbance has acquired such "e''
as TO have demanded the recognition OF bellisefehcg
and as a mere matter OF municpa. ADMINISTRATOR
no nation can permit unauthorized acts Vi wal
within its territory In nraction of Its sovereignty
while good faith toward friendly NATIONS requires
their prevention. Hence. as Attorney-ueHeidi iio"i
pointed out though the principal OBJECT Oh 'he aV'
of Congress was TO secure the performance or the
duty of the United States. under the law OF ma
tons. as a neutral nation in respect OF foreign
Powers the act is nevertheless an act TO punsf.
certain offences against the United States by hnes
imprisonment and forfeitures. and the act itself de-
fines the precise nature of these offences"
other not while the statute plainly applied TO both
''Belligerency," continued the Chief Justice lis
recognized when a political struggle has attained
certain magnitude and affects the interests OF
the recognizing power: and in the Instance OF mari
time operations recognition may be compelled or
the vessels Of the insurgents, II molesting other
parties may be pursued as pirates. But " peiohss
TO the political department to determine "heh Del
lgerency shall be recognized. and It's action must
be accepted according to the terms ana intentions
expressed The distinction between recognition OF
belligerency and the recognition OF state OF po-
litical revolt between the recognition OF war In
material sense and OF war in legal sense. Is
sharply illustrated by the case before us For here
the political department has not recognized the ex-
stence of a de facto belligerent Power engaged In
hostilities with Span but has recognized the exist
ence of nsurrectionary warfare prevailing before.
at the time and since this forfeiture was Incurred
Quoting the different executive proclamations on
the subject the Chief Justice continued: We arr
thus judclay Informed OF the exs'e ~ ho i AN an
,bori,v Of Government with which the United
States are on terms OF peace and amity, athough
Acknowledgement of the insurgents as belligerents
by the political department has not taken place,
and cannot be doubted that this executive action
has called the neutrality act into play we see no
justification for importing into Section bsS words
which IT does contain and which would S MAKE
erency, and while the libel might have been drawn
with somewhat greater precision we are OF opinion
cree must be reversed and the cause remanded to
the District Court. with directions to resume Gus
tody Of the vessel
The law Of the State % Ncw-York forbidding the
use OF stoves in cars steam railroads for heat
ing nurposas was affirmed by the Supreme Court
to-day The case came up on appeal ny the New
York. New-Haven and Hartford Railroad Com
many. In the failure OF Congress to legislate on
the subject Justice Harlan said 1t was competent
for the State to provide for the safety OF passen-
State or coming into II from another state
The statute Of the State Of Louisiana prohibit
ing under penalty OF $1,000 citizens OF the state
from doing any act in connection with the issuing
OF a policy Of insurance by company which has
not conformed TO the requirements for doing buSi-
moss IN that State was declared by the Supreme
Court to-day TO be unconstt itional Justice Shras
speaking for the court sad un e the liberty Of
the citizen and the Judgment OF the state courts
therefore reversed
National Bank. OF Philadelphia. in the Supreme
Court to-day, when a judicial construction was
nut upon a transaction between that bank and
the Fourth Street National Bank OF the same
city the day before the banks doors were closed.
The president OF the keystone Bank borrowed
s35 900 from the Fourth Street Bank. giving In re-
turn a check for that sum upon the amount held
to it's credit by New-York correspondent The
reim and Justice white said that the crcun-
stances surrounding the Transaction established an
CT the Fourth Street Bank against the claims of
the general creditors Of the Keystone Bank.
The claim of the city Of Santa Fe n. NJ. for the
title to a tract OF land four leagues In extent each
way measured from the centre Of the plaza OF the
town. which the Court Of Private Land Claims
affirmed. was rejected by The Supreme Court OF the
White was based, not upon contract or grant, but
upon the operation OF the Spanish law under the
Spanish dc mnion. This claim. the Court said. was
entirely unfounded. The judgment Of the Land
Court in favor OF the town was reversed
The two cases Of the Chicago Burlington and
Quincy Railroad Company against the city OF
Chicago growing out OF condemnation proceed
ings for the opening Of streets the railroad
company's tracks In Chicago, were decided in the
Supreme Court to-day against the railroad COM
pany. The jury trying the cases originally gave
81 damages to the railroad company for taking its
property along the right of way IN sufficient guam
tity to open the streets. This, II was asserted
was a violation Of the constitutional prohibition
against taking private property without due proc
ess OF law and without compensation. The SUI
rreme Court decided it could not review the action
OF a Jury upon questions of fact submitted 10 IT,
and II found no error In the application OF the
the State court against the railroad company was
affirmed Justice Brewer. while concurring In The
general principles enunciated by the Court, dis
scented from their application in this case. II was.
In his opinion, taking of property without com
pensation
The effort Of Judge Advocate-GencralS Swain,
tired. TO recover the amount OF pay withheld from
him under operation Of the judgment OF court
martial. has been rejected by the Supreme Court,
which to-day affirmed the judgment of the Court
OF Claims against him.
The criminal features OF the Oeomargarine law
were sustained by the Supreme Court to-day. Three
persons were convicted In the courts OF the Dis
trict OF Columbia OF selling oleomargarine without
having II stamped and marked required by