The Saint Paul globe., 1900-12-11
.DAY IN TIE SUPREME COURT
NEELY ExTRADITION CASE TIP RE.
FORE NATIONS HIGHEST
TRIBUNAL
FULL BENCH WAS PRESENT
Many Questions Covering the RcIa-
tion of the United States to
the New Dependencies
Are involved.

WASHINGTON, Dec 10.-The Neely
extradition case was argued today in the
supreme court. All the judges were
present. The argument developed inter-
esting questions Of law with reference
to the right of the United States to ex-
tradite criminal in the absence Of an
extradition treaty, and especially with
reference with the right of the president
since the ratification of the treaty in
Paris to maintain a military form of
government in the island of Cuba. The
latter feature of the argument made it
the first of the arguments which bring
up for final decision by the supreme
court the constitutional relations be-
tween this country and the territorial
acquisition which it has gained as a re-
suit of the SpaniSh-American war. The
Nicely case referred exclusively to the
character of these relations so far as the
island Of Cuba was concerned, and this
presented an independent question from
that which will be argued on Dec. II.
when the character of these relations
with Porto Rico and the Philippines will
be under considera ton.
John D. Lindsey, of the New York bar,
opened the argument for Nicely. He
claimed that there existed in Cuba, prior
to our Intervention, a Cuban republic.
This republic, he argued, the United
States recognized on April 20, 1888, when
the president, which declared that the
people of the island of Cuba are, and of
right ought to be, free and Independent
He claimed that the United States did
not make war against the Cuban repub-
lie, thus recognized, but was its ally,
and that therefore the success of the
American army did not mean that Cuba
was conquered, but that the Spanish
troops were driven out of the territory
ola friendly ally. He contended, there
fore, that when the treaty of Paris was
ratified the war ceased, and as no war
had been declared against the Cuban
republic, all further justification under
the war making power to occupy Cuba
ceased, and the president should, imme-
diately upon the ratification of the trea-
ty, or within reasonable time thereafter,
have withdrawn the army. He claimed,
therefore, that the institution and main
tenance by the president of a military
government in Cuba was, and is, with
out authority under International law
and in fragrant contravention of the con-
stitution Of the United States.
He further urged that such military
government was unconstitutional as it
was essentially a prosecution of war
against the Cuban republic, and as con-
gress alone had the authority to declare
war against the Cuban republic, the con-
troll of Cuba by the president, as COM
mander-in-chief, was a virtual prosecu-
ton of war with the authority of con-
gress. He denied that such government
could be justified under the war power,
as the war power has no existence eX-
cept in time of war, when the war is
authorized by congress, and that the
president could not use the national
forces for the purpose of governing Cuba.
He relied especially upon the case of ex-
palte Milligan. He argued finally that
in any event, as the trial in the Cuban
courts is without grand jury or a petit
jury, Neeiy could not be tried before
them without violation of the SIXTH sew
enth and eighth amendments to the con-
stitution.
Owing to the Iateness of the hour when
Mr.. Lindsay concluded his argument in
the Nicely case before the supreme court
today, Mr.. Beck, who is trying the case
for the government, did not speak.
REVENUE LAW UPHELD.
In an opinion handed down by Chief
Justice Fuller, the United States supreme
court today affirmed the opinion of the
supreme court of Georgia in the case of
r. A. Williams against Sheriff Fear, of
Morgan county. The case involved the
constitutionality of the state revenue law,
and especially that portion of it applying
to immigrant agents Both decisions up
held the law.
WICHITA RESERVATION CASE.
The United States supreme court to-
day rendered decision in the claim of
the Wichita, Choctaw and Chickasaw In
dtans in connection with the old Wichita
reservation, Justice Harlan handing down
the opinion. The claim is a complicated
one, and involved an investigation of In
dian claims to title going back as far as
1913. The Indians made a treaty with the
limited States in oa5i ioo
the Wichita reservation and agreeing to
take 160 acres of land in severalty. They
then claimed that they were entitled to
the proceeds of the sale of the surplus
land, and by act of congress were al
lowed to bring in the court Of claims.
That court sustained the contention of
the Indians, but today's opinion reverses
that position. the supreme court holding
that in the treaty of 1866 the Choctaw
had made an absolute cession of the land
included in the reservation. The court
also remanded the case to the court of
claims, with directions to dismiss the
claims of the Choctaws and the Chicka-
saws law. The reservation is a part Of
the old leased district of 100000 acres,
lying between the Red river and the
river and the ninety-eighth and
one hundredth degree of west longitude
MISSOURI COURT SUSTAINED.
Justice White today handed down the
decision of the court in the case of J. A.
Mason, auditor of the city of St Louis,
VS.. The State of Missouri, affirming the
decision of the state supreme court of
Missouri The case involves the validity
of the state law classifying cities for Vot-
ing and registration purposes. Under this
law st. Louis was made the only city of
the first class, and Mr.. Mason refused to
allow the accounts of election officers
under the law, on the ground that the law
was unconstitutional. The state court
refused to sustain this view, and today $
opinion upheld sthat view of the case