The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1898-04-18
POWER OF RECOGNITION.
Supreme Court Has Declared II an
Executive Function,

supreme Court Has Declared Ii an
Executive Function.
Indianapolis. Ind. April 1.-THE Journal
win publish the following card from ex-
Attorney General w. H.. II. Miller:
Editor Indianapolis Journal-As the
question whether the recognition of new
government in Cuba is an executive or
legislative function has become a practi-
cal one, 1t may be of interest to know
what some of the courts have said about
the matter.
I'm Williams VS.. the Suffolk Insurance
Company sd Sumner 272) the decision OF
the case turned upon the disputed sover.
eighty over the Falkland Islands. The
government of Buenos Ayres insisted that
those islands were a part of Its dominions.
This the government of the United states
denied. Mr.. j. S. c. Story
being asked to decide this oues-
ton as an original judicial oues-
ton, refused to do so. and said NV iudg
ment is that this court possesses no such
authority; that it is bound by the doc
trines and claims insisted on Il by its own
government, and that it must take them
~ NC iASAlllui Until lnG contrary Is
tablished by some formal and authorized
action OF that government. 1t is very clear
that it belongs exclusively to the executive
department of our government to recog-
nize, from time to time any new govern
ments which may arise In the political
revolutions OF the world, and until such
new governments are so recognized they
cannot be admitted by our courts OF JUS
tice to have or to exercise the common
rights and prerogatives of Sovereignty
TO this proposition Justice Story cites
Gelston VS. Hoyt ed Wheaton, S40, and
number of English cases. The same
case In which this opinion was delivered by
Mr. j. s. c. Story having been brought
before the Supreme Court Mr.. j. s. c.
Mclean QSth Pet 415). speaking for the
court, said: Can there be any doubt that
when the executive branch Of the govern
ment, which Is charged with our foreign
relations, shall, in it's correspondence with
a foreign nation, assume fact in regard
to the sovereignty of any island or coun-
try, Il is conclusive on the judicial depart
ment, and In this view it is not material
to inquire, nor is Il the province of the
court to determine whether the executive
be right or wrong. Ii is enough to know
that In the exercise OF his constitutional
functions he has decided the question.
Having done this under the responsibilities
which belong to him, ii is obligatory on
the people and the government of the
union
"In the case of Luther VS.. Borden 9th
Howard, u the question for decision was
which OF two alleged governments was
the true state government OF Rhode Is
land. IT was there held that under the
constitutional requirement that the Uni
ted States guarantee 10 each state a re-
publican government 1t was for Congress
to decide what government Is established
in the state before II can determine wheth-
er it Is republican or not and that, there
fore, the act of Congress which had been
passed, was in that case controlling. But
Mr.. Chief Justice fancy, speaking for the
court in that case, said: In the case of
foreign nations, the government acknowl-
edged by the President is always recognize
ed in the courts OF the justice And this
principle has been applied by the act Of
Congress to the sovereign states OF the
Union. 1t is said that this power In the
President Is dangerous to liberty and may
be abused. All power may be abused IL
placed in unworthy hands. But II would
be difficult we think, to point out any
other hands in which this power would be
more safe and at the same time equally
effectuaf'
Again, only a few years ago in Jones
VS.. the United States, QS u S. 202) in
which the question for decision was as to
the sovereignty of the United States over
Navassa, a small island in the Caribbean
sea, Mr.. Justice Gray, delivering the opin-
ion of the court, cited and quoted with
approval the language of Mr.. ]. 8. c.
Mclean in the Suffolk insurance case
above set forth.
These opinions seem to Indicate pref
ty clear the trend of judicial opinion upon
this question.
(signed) w. II. IT. Miller.
indianapolis, April II, 1898"