Waterbury Democrat., 1900-12-10

diSproving the suggestion that there could be no military occupation after the treaty of peace Mir Beck argued that even if such subsequent military occupation could not be juStlhed by the treaty making power. under when this country had assumed the obllSa- tion to govern Cuba until it was pacl- fled and d new and stable government constituted. Until such time the island was necessarily governed under the law of belligerent right. even though there existed no present hos tilities and peace had been ofhclallE declared NIr Beck relied With es- pecial force upon the case of Cross Vs Harrison. in which the commanding general of the United States in Cali folnia. after the Mexican war main-
 tained q military government from the
 time Of the treaty of peace until Cali fornia was admitted into the uniop. NIr Beck id that while the political status of Cuba was anomalous. it was not without precedent. and he cited the Island of Cyprus. iii which Iur- key permitted English occupation and rule as long as Russia retained ccI- tain Armenian territory. While there fore the ultimate sovereignty was i'll
 Turkey yet England at present eN- | ercsed full sovereignty in Cyprus and
 
 | which would terminate it's rights in Cyprus. He also cited the British | military occupation of Egypt as an in 1 stance of the same government or ..defnitiVe occupation. He therefore 3s&gued that althoughs Cuba was for eign to this government. in the sense that it was not incorporated as per l manent domestic territory into the United States. it was, nevertheless, 1 territory pro tempore of the United | States subject to our jurisdiction and l to our rights as the sovereign power and that therefore the United States. l acting through the commander-in chief. had full rights to exercise all executive, legislative and judicial | powers in Cuba.
 With reference to the constitutional | guarantees as to jury trial in the 1 bill of rights MT Beck contended that | they had no application to Cuba.
 Mr Beck further said that Mir Lind says contention involved a remarka- ble contention. He could not deny the constitutional right of the government to make the treaty of Paris, but his ar | gument in effect denies the cOnstltu- tional right of the government to car l.y out the stipulationS of the treaty. This doctrine. tested by it's inevitable consequences is at once seen to be un- sound If this court were to adopt il and the president were to withdra" the army from Cuba and remove the existing civil government. there would then be no government at all. Ill the absence of any government. an anar- chy might possibly result. This mlshl lead to the destruction of life ana property which the United States. un- der the treaty Gf Paris. has promised to protect If. therefore. Spain or any other nation. the lives and propeft! of whose. citizens had been thus sac rificed. were to call this country 10 ac- count for our failure to carry out our treaty stipulations. the United Stales. l if Mir Lindsay's contention were aoeP. ed by the court. would be i'll the poSi- tion of asserting that it had no pc" CT to carry out it's own treaty oplisa- tions. "Could a more humiliatn% DO, sition be gained,' said Mr Beck. oi one more contrary to that 'Decen! re,
 spoct to the opinions of mahhiii' which N1r Jefferson made the Key ho'e
 to the great Declaration:
 After a reply by MT Lindsay 'ne
 court took the case under advlsemeli'