Evening star., 1899-12-11
Proceeds Of Sale sdof the Buena
Ventura.
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT
First Prize Taken 81 Curing the Span
ISL War
OTHER CASES CONSIDERED

The United States Supreme Court today
decided in the naval prize money case
growing out of the CAPTURE of the Spanish
steamer Buena Ventura. the first prize of
the war with Spain, 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
Span,ards, the condemnation was affirmed.
The opinion in the case of the Buena Ven
tura was handed down by Justice Peckham
and turned upon the construction of the
clause OF the PRESIDENTS message of the
2oth OF April, 1888, exempting Spanish ves-
seis IN American ports from the operation
OF the proclamation of war until the 21st of
May following. 1t was shown that the Ven
tnra had left an American port on the Gulf
OF Mexico on the 1eth of April, seven days
before the presidential proclamation was
issued, and that it was captured on the Goth
OF that month. or the same day in which
the proclamation appeared,
me oeclsfon turned upon the point as to
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 procla-
nation.
Justice Peckham's opinion held that it
did apply to vessels under this condition
and that on this account the Ventura
though owned by Spanish house, was ex
empt. He said in this connection that the
policy of the United States had always been
one of liberalfty 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 proceeds of the
sale Of the vessel. Justices Gray and Nc
Kenna dissented from the opinion.
The other Prizes.
The chief justice delivered the opinion
of the court in the cases of the Pedro and
the Guido and, while the condemna ton of
these vessels was affirmed, there were dis
sents in both instances. Four Of the nine
members of the court united in a dissent
ing opinion in the Pedro case. This dis
senting opinion was handed down by JUS
tice White and was concurred in by JUS
tees Brewer. Shiras and Peckham.
The chief justice, in shis opinion in this
case; stated the facts to be that the Pedro
had left Liverpool in March with cargo
for Cuban ports. with the intention of
afterward proceeding to the United States
for cargo of lumber for her return voy-
age. She reached Havana April II. and on
the 22d took her departure for Santiago,
Cuba, and was captured the same day by
the cruiser New York and duly condemned.
Left After War Opened.
In passing upon the merits of the case
practically declared on the 21st, and ti,at
the officers of the vessel must have known
this fact. Z
He dwelt upon the fact that the vessel
was proceeding from port of the enemy
to another port of the enemy when over
taken. and contended that the case did not
come under any of the exemptions of the
Presidents message.
Justice White. In his dissenting opinion
called attention to the fact that the Pedro
had been for nihe years engaged in a regu-
lar line of business betweeQ Liverpool and
the United States, via Cuba and said that
the landing of the light cargo she carried
TO Havana was only am incidetit. as II was
not nearly SO important as the cargo of
lumber which was. to be carried from the
United States on the return. He also
urged that Havana harbor was not block
AIDED when the Pedro left that port.
The Guido case turned upon a similar
state of affairs to that prevailing in the
Pedro case and was also decided against
the Spanish owners. In this case Justices
Shiras, White and Peckham dissented.