Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1898-04-18

Miller, Of Indiana, Contributes an
Interesting Paper Upon This Per-
tinent and Mooted Question-A
Summary of the Authorities
Cited.
Indianapolis, Ind, April 1.-THE
Journal will publish the following card
from ex-Attorney General w. II. H.
Miller:
ITO the editor of the indianapolis Jour
| nal:
las the question whether the recog
milton of new government in Cuba is
| an executive or legislative function has
| become practical one, it may be of in
| terest to know what some of the courts
| have said about the matter.
In Williams VS. the Suffold Insur-
ance Company (Third Sumner, 272) the
| decision of the case turned upon the
| disputed sovereignty over the Falkland
| Islands The government of Buenos
/, Ayres insisted that those islands were
| part Of its dominions This the gov
| eminent of the United States denied.
| Mr.. Justice Storey being asked to decide
| this question as an original judicial
| question,
REFUSED TO DO so,
| and said
| My judgment is that this Court
| possess no such authority; that it is
| bound blythe doctrines and claims in
sisted on by its government. and that
| it must take them to be rightful until
| the contrary is established by some for
| NAL and authorized action of that gov
| eminent 1t is very clear that it be-
! longs exclusively to the executive de-
| partment of our government TO recog-
nize from time to time. any new gov
| ernments which may arise in the polltl-
cal revolutions of the world; and untli
| such new governments are recognized,
! they cannot be admitted by our courts
| Of Justice to have or to exercise the
common rights and prerogatives OF SOW
ereignty.
| ITO this proposition Justice Storey
| cites Gelston vs. Hoyt, (third Wheaton,
346) and a number of English cases.
| The same case in which this opinion
| was delivered by Mr.. Justice Storey
having been brought BEFORE
THE SUPREME COURT.
| Mr. Justice Mclean, thirteenth 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 for-
! eign relations, shall in its correspond
| ence with a foreign nation assume
! fact in regard to the sovereignty or
! any island or country, it is conclusive
| on the judicial department? And IN
| this view it is not material TO inquire
nor is it the province OF the court 10
| determine whether the executive De
| right or wrong. 1t is enough TO know
| that in the exercise of his constltu-
| tional functions he has decided the
| ouestion. Having done this under the
| RESPONSIBILITIES which belong TO MIN,
it is obligatory ON the people OF the
| government of the Union.
| IN the case of Luther VS.. Borden
| 9th Howard. II the question for de-
| cision was which of two alleged gov
ernments was the true State govern
ment of Rhode Island 1t was there
| held that under the constitutional re-
| ouirement that the United States guar
! Ctof "
| eminent, it was
FOR CONGRESS TO DECIDE
what government is established in the
| State before ii can determine whether
| it is republican or not, and that, there
| fore. the act of Congress which had
| been passed was in that case contro1-
| ing. But Mr.. Chief Justice fancy,
| speaking for the Court in that case.
| said:
| In the case of foreign nations, the
| government acknowledged by the Pres
| ident is always recognized in the courts
| of Justice. And this principle has been
! applied by the act Of Congress to the
| sovereign statues of the union. 1t is
| said that this power in the President
| is dangerous to liberty and may be
i -
| placed in unworthy hands. But it
| 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 effectual.
Again, only a few years ago in Jones
| VS.. the United States Us L. 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, de-
| livering the opinion of the Court,
cited and quoted with approval the
| language of Mr. Justice Mclean in the
Suffolk insurance case above set forth.
These opinions seem to indicate pref
ty clearly the trend of judicial opinion
| upon this question.
/ (Signed) wv. H. H. MILLER.
indianapolis, Ind, April II, 49,"
4
Il