The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-12-12

In the Supreme Court yesterday john D.
Lindsay, of New York. of counsel for
Charles W. F. Neely, resumed his argu-
ment begun Monday and concluded about
1 o'clock. He was followed by Assistant
Attorney General James N. Beck, who re-
! ferred to Mr.. Lindsay's contention as
meaning logically that if an American cit
izen should apply the torch of the incen-
diary to the homes of the Cuban people
and assassinate its citizens, and then
fee to this country, the United States al
| though pledged by the Treaty Of Paris to
protect life and property in Cuba during
the period Of it's occupation, was power
less to deliver such fugitives to the mu-
nicipal authorities of Cuba He claimed
that this contention was without reason
or authority to support it, and that the
same right as other independent nations
to surrender fugitive criminals where it
felt called upon from considerations of
comfy or public policy to do so. More
over, he claimed that 1t was an inherent
attribute of sovereignty. being an inter
national obligation which each independ
ent State must, in the comfy OF nations,
fulfill to another.
As to the right to govern Cuba. Mr..
Beck tpok issue with Mr.. Lindsay's whole
contention. He claimed that the Govern
ment, prior to the declaration of war
against Spain, had uniformly refused to
recognize the Cuban Republic. He denied
that the Joint resolution operated to rec
ognize the Cuban Republic. This, he said,
was shown by the fact that Congress
struck out of the joint resolution a pro-
vision which specifically recognized the
existence of Cuban Republic. In the
resolution as finally passed, Mr.. Beck
pointed out that Congress had recognized
that the Cuban people were free and in
dependent, but he claimed that there was
wide distinction between the term
people and the expressions State or
nation"
There was Jewish people. but at this
time no Jewish nation. A State is. how
ever. political and organic entity and
while, therefore, Congress did recognize
that the Cuban people had by success in
the field of war earned the right to be
regarded as free and Independent, 1t did
not follow that any Cuban Government as
a political entity was recognized. He tr-
gued, on the contrary, that, as the result
of our success on land and sea, the King
dom of Spain had executed treaty with
this country, and that Cuba had been sur
rendered to this country, and that. while
this country held Cuba in trust Cor the
Cuban people until IT had fulfilled the du-
ties OF such trust and pacified the island,
the United States was the only de facto
and de jure Government in Cuba.
AS disproying the suggestion that there
could be no military occupation after the
treaty of peace. Mr.. Beck argued that,
even il such subsequent military occupa-
tion could not be justified by the war
making power. 1t was simply justified by
the treaty making power. under which
this country had assumed the obligation
to govern Cuba until it was paciied and
a new and stable government constituted.
Until such time the island was necessarily
under the law OF belligerent
right, even though there existed no pres
ent hostilities. and peace had been Off
cially declared.
Mr.. Beck relied with especial force upon
the case of Cross against Harrison, in
which the commanding general of the
United States in California. after the Mex
lean war. maintained military govern
ment from the time of the treaty until
California was admitted into the Union.
Mr.. Beck said that, while the political
status OF Cuba was anomalous it was not
without precedent. and he cited the
Island of Cyprus, in which Turkey per-
miited English occupation and rule as
onS as Russia retained certain Armenian |
While, therefore. the ultimate |
sovereignty was in Turkey, yet England |
cyprus, and would until the contingency |
rose which would terminate it's rights in |
Iyprus. He also cited the British mill (
AIRY occupation of Egypt as an instance
II tie same government of "defnitivc oc-
upation."
He therefore argued that. although Cuba
vas foreign to this Government in the
ense that it was not Incorporated as per-
domestic territory into the United |
states. it was. nevertheless. territory pro
elnporc Of the United States, subject to
'ur jurisdiction and to our rights as the
overeign power. and that. therefore the
United States. acting through the Com
Chief, had full rights TO exer-
Use all executive. legislative, and judicial
overs in Cuba.
With reference to the constitutional
as to jury trial in the bill
I rights, Mr.. Beck conteIded that they
ad no application to Cuba
MIR. Beck further said that Mr.. Lindsay's
ontention involved remarkable conten-
ion. He could not deny the constitutional
ight of the Government to make the
'reaty of Paris; but his argument in eff
set denies the constitutional right of the
Government to carry out the stipuiatiOns
the treaty. This doctrine, tested by its
nevitable consequences. is at once seen
D be unsound. If this court were to adopt
/. and the President were to withdraw
he army from Cuba and remove the exist
lg civil government, there would then be
o government at all.
rchy might possibly result. This might
lad TO the destruction Of life and proper
Y, which the United States. under the .
reaty of Paris has promised to protect.
!. therefore. Spain or any other nation
ne lives and property of whose citizens
ad been thus sacrificed were to call this
Duntry to account for cur failure to carry
ut our treaty stipulations the United !
lates. IL Mr.. Lindsay's contention were
iopted by the court. would be in the po- !
.ion OF asserting that it had no power l
, carry out its own treaty obligations.
Gould more humiliatng position be :
nagined. or one more contrary to that {
ecent respect to the opinions of man
ind which Mr.. Jefferson made the key
pte to the great Declaration"
After reply by Mr.. Lindsay the court ,