Waterbury Democrat., 1900-12-10

Washington. Dec lO.-The Neely ex- tradition case was argued to-day i'll the supreme court. All the judges were present. The argument developed in teresting and important questions of law with reference to the right or the United States to eXtradite q fugl- tive criminal in the absence of an eN- tradition treaty. and especially with reference to the right of the president since the ratification of the treaty or Paris to maintain q military form or government ill the island of Cuba. The latter feature of the argument made it the first of the arguments which bring LID for final decision by the supreme court the constitutional relations be- tween this country and the territorial acquisitions which it has gained as a result of the Spanish American war. The Neely case referred exclusively 10 the character of these relations so lar as the island of Cuba was concerned, and thus presented an Independent question from that which will he ar "ued on December IT. when the char acter of these relations with Porto Rico and the Philippines will he under consideration.
 John b. Lindsay of the New York bar opened the argument for Neely. He. claimed that there existed ill CuDa prior to our intervention Il Cuban re- public. This republic. he argued. the United States recognized on April 70 1898. when it passed joint resolution signed by tie president, which u2- ,.iared .'that tht. people of the island of Cuba are. aud of right ought 10 De. free and independent.
 He claimed that the United states did not make war against the Cuban republic thus recognized. but was us ailv. and that therefore the success of the American army did not lnean that Cuba was conquered. but that the Spanish troops We're driven out of the territory of q friendly ally. lie conrendpd. therefore. that when the treaty of Paris was ratified the war ceased, and as no war had been de clared against the Cuban republic all further justification under the war held making power to occupy Cuba ceased and the president should lmme- diately upon the ratification of the treaty. or within I r2asona blc tune thereafter. have withdrawn the army He claimed therefore that the inStltu- tiOn and maintenance by the president of ! military government Ill CuDa was and is without authority under inter- national law and in fragrant contradlc- tion cf the constitution of the United States He further urged that such military government was unconSttu- tfonal as it was essentially a prescott ton of war against the Cuban republic and as congress alone had the author ity 10 declare war against the Cuban republic. the control of Cuba by the president as commander in chief was T virtual prosecution of war without the authority of congress. He denied that such government could be Justl- fled under the war power. as the war power has no existence except i'll time of war. when the war is authorized by congress. and that the president could not use the national forces for the pur- pose of governing Cuba. He relied especially upon the case of eN-parte IIilligan. He argued finally that ln any event as the trial in the Cuban courts is without q grand jury or a Derir jury. Nealy could not be tried be- fore them without violation of the siyrh. seventh and eighth amendments to the constitution.
 As.istanf Attorney General James M Beck replied on behalf of the gov ernment. He characterized Mir Llnd- says contention as meaning logically that if an Am arcan citizen should ap- lpy torch of the incednialy to the lCmes of the Cuban people and assas- Sinate it's citizens and then flee to this
  pledged by the treaty of Paris to pro feet life and property in Cuba during the period of its occupation. was DOW erleSS to deliver such fugitive to the niunicipal authorities of Cuba. He claimed that this contention was with out reason or authority to support Il and that the true position was that thl> nation had the anne right as other ln dependent nations to surrender fugl tive criminals wherein it felt called upon from considerations of comity ol public policy to do so. Moreover. ht claimed that it was an inherent tribute of sovereignty. being an internatona obligation which each independen state must in the comity of nation: fulfill to another
 As to the right to govern Cuba. MI Beck took issue with Mir Lindsay: whole contention. He claimed tha the government, prior to the declara ton of war against spain had uniformly refused t( recognize the Cuban republic. He de nied that the joint resolutions operat ed to recognize the Cuban republic This. he said, was shown by the fact that congress struck out of the joint resolution a provision which specif cally recognized the existence of 8 Cuban republic. In the resolution as
  that congress had recognized that the Cuban people were free and inde. pendent, but he claimed that there was a wide distinction between the term people" and the expressions state or nation"
 state is, however, a political and organic entity and while, therefore congress did recognize that the Cuban people had by success is the field of war earned the right to be regarded Hs free and independent, it did not fol low that an Cuban government as a political entity, was recognized. He argued, on the contrary, that as the result of our success on land and sea- the Kingdom of Spain had executed Fl treaty with this country and that Cuba had been surrendered to this country and that while this country held Cuba in trust for the Cuban peo ple until it had fulfilled the duties o1 such trust and pacffied the island, the United States was the only de factor and de jure government in Cuba ~