Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1897-02-16

s',u quoted an opinion TO that effect by
ss',,oiney -Seneral Hoar upon a former
,updil insurrection. and this construction
neiu' ne said. until Judge I.ockes de-
clslon had been acquiesced in. This de-
cislon was the first which nut upon sec
tioh h o%>S the construction that the 'colony.
uistrict, or people" in whose service the
Nessei was to be employed must be recog-
n'~eu as such by the political power OF
ehe United States, and this decision II
was stated. directly overruled his own de-
eision in 1856. in the case Of the steamer
CITY OF Mexico
Proceeding Mr.. Whitney made the
points that d) the internal evidence OF the
statute was opposed TO the theory that a
recognition OF belligerency was necessary
10 the operation Of the statute; (2) the his
tory OF the statute is opposed to the
'heory' CD II any executive recognition is
necessary to put the statute in operation,
that recognition had been given when the
libel was filed; (D the stipulation ana
bond for the release of the vessel were
not authorized by law. and the vessel
should be remanded to the custody Of the
Marshal
Discussing the first point. Mr. Whit
ney called attention TO the serious con-
sequences of the recognition Of the bel
ligerency Of an insurgent body-trafic I'm
arms and munitions must be stopped;
claims for reparation on account OF dam
ages suffered by citizens OF the United
States through the hostilities could not
be enforced. and merchantmen must sub
nit so the rights OF blockade, visitation,
and search and seizure Of contraband ar
ticles on the high seas.
Mr.. w. Hallet Phillips followed IN be-
half Of the Three Friends. He argued
that the position Of the lower court was
correct in holding that the statute was
not violated, because. when the act men
toned the word people" it meant one
of the denominations applied by Congress
TO foreign Power. The same construc-
tion. he asserted. had also been given TO
the words by the Executive and Con-
gress.
Meeting the point made by the govern
ment counsel-that II recognition Of
belligerency was essential to the opera
tion Of the statute. IT had been sufficient
ly made at that time the libel was filed
he soid the proclamations Of the Pres-
dent relied upon. did not lend counte-
nance to the position Of the government.
Tor they did not recognize a public war
existing in Cuba. much less a govern
ereignty. The opinion of Attorney Gene
raj Hoar. quoted by counsel for the
United States. did not meet the present
case. for he had a different question pre-
sented 10 him. No argument could pro-
perry be made on the ground that the
United States had any duties TO perform
other than those specified in it's legisla-
tion, or that citizens could be proceeded
against criminally, except as thus pro-
vided Neither the United States nor
Spain admitted that there existed state
or belligerency. and. in the absence
OF that admission there could not exist
any obligations of neutrality.
The argument for the steamer was con-
tinued by Mr.. A. w. Cockrell, of Florida.
attorney for the owners of the vessel He
devoted himself largely to the construction
Of the statute. 1t was penal he said, and
i'm enforcing IL the government could not
eliminate a single fact or circumstance
required by the statute to make out the
forfeiture provided for. In seeking, under
the libel in question to make out a case
Of forfeiture. Independently of and without
reference to the ascertained guilt Of the
offending persons, he said the government
was forced to say that the vessel might
be liable to condemnation under the sta
tute, and the offending persons acquitted.
The proceedings against the Three
Friends he said, were based on a section
which made the criminal intent of the
offending persons an essential ingredient
Of their conviction. and an essential ingre-
dent Of the forfeiture of the vessel. The
libel. he asserted, was deficient in respect
Of allegations covering these points.
Mr.. Cockrel paid some attention to the
phrase colony, district, or people, IL the
Jaw, and contended that its meaning must
be defined in view Of the status Of the
South American insurgents. at the time
Of the enactment i'm which IT was intro
iuced. The belligerency. he asserted, had
been fully and distinctly recognized. The
words must be considered as applying TO
powers recognized as existing and making
war.
The argument was concluded by Attor-
ney- General Harmon. who briefly address
ed the court. The sitting was prolonged un-
iii an unusual hour in order TO obviate the
necessity for a session tomorrow. Attor-
1ey-Gencral Harmon said that President
'leveland by proclamation and state
ments i'm his message to Congress. had re-
cognized the fact that hostilites were in
1rOgress in Cuba. but that bad not con-
'erred belligerency on the Cubans-it was
4 recognition of Insurgency. He declared
hat any body Of persons claiming the
light to be Independent, and struggling TO
achieve that independence, were common
v called "A people IIpHl lnt Hioihchl Niie'e
the struggle became important enough TO
attract the attention of the world; and
hey would not, he said, be called by that
lille anv sooner because by reason OF
their access TO the sea or their contiguity
o some otheE nation, their belligerency
night receive foreign recognition at an
.arlier stage of the insurrection.
The Attorney General dwelt upon the
necessity for a reversal Of Judge Locke's
ruling. When "A vessel belonging to citi-
ems Of the United states committed hos
.nities upon the high seas against
.riendlv mower. her act was pTima facie
,iratical. She was rendered forfeit, and
,er officers and crew were liable to be
,anged. But if the hostilities were per-
-cr,',od I'm the interest of a colony, dis
.rict or people" then the act was freed
rom the imputation of piracy, and the
,rosecution. if any were had. would be
,oda under q different and milder law.
CASE OF THE BERMUDA.
Hon ffns