The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1899-12-12
AN UNLAWFUL SEIZURE
THE SUPREME COURT DECIDES IN
FAVOR OF sPANIARDs.
Says the Steamer Buena Ventura Was
Not Legally a Naval Prixe-Rul-
ing I'm Other Cases.

WASHINGTON, Dec. 1.-THE United
States Supreme Court to-day decided in
the naval prize money case. growing out
of the capture of the Spanish steamer
Buena Ventura during the Spanish war.
that the condemnation of the vessel was
contrary to the terms OF the Presidents
proclamation and ordered the proceeds OF
the sale of the vessel to be turned over to
the owners. In the cases Of the vessels
Pedro and Guido. also owned by Spaniards.
the condemnation was affirmed.
The opinion in the case of the Buena
Ventura was handed down by Justice
Peckham, and turned on the construction
of the clause of the Presidents message
of the 18th of April. 1898. exempting Span
ish vessels in American ports from the
operation of the proclamation or
til the 2lst of May following, the point
being whether the Presidents exemption
order applied to Spanish vessels which had
left American ports for ports IN a neutral
country prior to the issuance of the proc
lamation. Justice Peckham's opinion held
that it did apply to vessels under this con-
dition. and that on this account the Ven
tura, though owned by Spanish house.
was exempt. He said in this connection
always been one of liberality in such cases.
and that there was no reason for a change
of policy at this time He. therefore, held
that the owners were entitled to the pro-
ceeds of the sale Of the vessel. Justices
Gray and Mckenna dissented.
The chief justice delivered the opinion OF
the court in the cases of the Pedro and
Guido. and while the condemnation of these
vessels was affirmed. there were dissents
in both cases. Four of the nine members
OF the court united In a dissenting opinion
i'm the Pedro case. This dissenting opinion
was handed down by Justice White and
was concurred in by Justices Brewer. Shi-
ras and Peckham. The chief justice I'm his
opinion in this case states the facts TO be
that the Pedro had left Liverpool I'm March
with cargo for Cuban ports. with the in
tention of afterwards proceeding to the
United States for cargo Of lumber for her
return voyage. She reached Havana on
April IL. and on the I'D took her departure
for Santiago, Cuba, and was captured the
same day by the cruiser New York and
duly condemned. In passing on the merits
of the case the chief justice held that war
had been practically declared on the 21st.
and that the officers of the vessel must
have known this fact. He dwelt on the
fact that the vessel was proceeding from
a port of the enemy to another port OF the
enemy when overtaken, and contended that
Of the Presidents message. The Guido
case similar in the main. In this case
Justices Shiras. White and Peckham dis
scented.
The court affirmed the opinion of the
Court OF Claims In the claim OF the Los
Abra Silver Mining Company against the
Republic Of Mexico, holding that claim to
be fraudulent and unfounded. The claim
was for about 100000. The opinion was
handed down by Justice Harlan, who went
fully into it's history. He said the court.
i'm passing on the case. incidentally decided
that the signature of the President at
tached TO a bill during recess OF Con-
gress, IL attached within the constitutional
ten days, renders act so signed valid
as If Congress were in session. the act au-
thoriZing the investigation OF the claim
having been approved during Christmas
recess. Justice Harlan said the essential
requirement was that the President should
sign bill, and IL could not be considered
important whether the signature was at
tached during a recess or when Congress
was actually sitting. II the act was done
within the ten days time allowed for ex-
ecutive examination. He said. however.
| the decision on this point did not cover the
legality of executive approval after the
| final adjournment of Congress. that point
not being raised.