The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-12-12
United States Troops, He Asserts, Are
Lawfully In Occupation of
the Island of Cuba.
NO OTHER AUTHORITY EXISTS
THE MILITARY GOVERNMENT gu
PREME FOR THE PRESENT.
Precedents Cited-Tresty of Paris Did
Not Make Cuba Free or Give II
u Civil Government.

WASHINGTON, Dec. 1.-THE Nicely ex-
case argument was continued be-
fore the United States Supreme Court JUS
tees to-day. John d. Lindsay. counsel for
Nicely, spoke yesterday, contending that
Cuba was illegally occupied by American
troops and that the Cuban courts, as at
present organized, had no power to try his
client. To-day Assistant Attorney Cen
eral James NJ. Beck replied on be-
half of the government. He char
acterized Mr.. Lindsay's contention as
meaning, logically. that if an American
citizen should apply the torch of the in
.cendiary to the homes of the Cuban people
and assassinate its citizens, and then flee
to this country, the United States, al
though pledged by the treaty of Parks, to
protect life and property in Cuba during
the period of its occupation, was powerless
to deliver such fugitive to the municipal
authorities of Cuba He claimed that this
was without reason or author
ity to support it, and that the true position
was that this Nation had the same right
other Independent nations TO surrender
fugitive criminals where it felt called on,
" Va >
policy, to do so. Moreover, he claimed that
it was an inherent attribute of sovereignty,
being an International obligation which
each independent state must, in the comfy
of nations. fulfill to another.
AS to the right TO govern Cuba, Mr.. Beck
took issue with Mr.. Lindsay's whole con-
~tention. He claimed that the government,
prior to the declaration of war against
Spain, had uniformly refused to recognize
the Cuban republic. He denied that the
Joint resolution operated to recognize the
Cuban republic. This, he said. was shown
by the fact that Congress struck out or
the Joint resolution a provision which spe-
officially recognized the existence of a Gu
passed, Mr.. Beck pointed out thar Con-
gress recognized the Cuban people were
free and independent, blu he claimed there
was a wide distinction between the term
people and the expressions state" or
nation" There was a Jewish people, but,
at this time, no Jewish nation. A state is,
however, a political and organic entity,
and. while. therefore, Congress did recog-
nize that the Cuban people had, by sue
cess in the field of war, earned the right
IT, be regarded as free and independent, it
did not follow that any Cuban government.
as a political entity, was recognized. He
argued, on the contrary, that, as the re-
suit of our success. on land and sea. the
kingdom CT Spain had executed a treaty
with this country. and that Cuba had been
surrendered 10 this country. and that while
this country held Cuba in trust for the
Cuban people until IL had fulfilled the
duties of such trust and pacified the island,
the United States was the only de facto
and de jure government In Cuba.
AS disproving the suggestion that there
could be no military occupation after the
treaty of peace, Mr.. Beck argued that,
even if such subsequent military occupa-
tion could not be justified by the war-mak-
ing power. it was amply justified by the
t-reaty-making power. under which this
government had agreed 10 govern Cuba
until it was pacified and a new and stable
government constituted. Until such time
the island was necessarily governed under
the law of belligerent right, even If there
existed no political hostilities, and peace
had been officially declared.
NOT WITHOUT PRECEDENT.
Mr.. Beck relied with especial force upon
the case of Cross versus Harrison, in which
the commanding general Of the United
States in California, after the Mexican
war, maintained a military government
from the time of the treaty Of peace 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 permitted Eng
lish occupation and rule as long as Russia
retained certain Armenian territory. While,
therefore, the ultimate sovereignty was in
Turkey, yet England, at present, exer-
oicad full SOycrQiQnfv in CVnrnS and wOnil
Until the contingency arose which would
terminate it's rights in Cyprus. He also
cited the British occupation Of Egypt as
an instance of the same government OF
"~definitive occupation" He. therefore, ar
gued that, although Cuba was foreign to
this government, I'm the sense that it was
not Incorporated as permanent domestic ter
ritory into the United States. it was, never
theless, territory pro tempore of the United
States, subject to our jurisdiction and our
righS as the sovereign power, and that,
therefore, the United States, acting through
the commander-in-chef. had full rights to
exercise all executives legislative and judi
cial powers in Cuba.
With reference to the constitutional guar
antees as to jury trial in the bill OF rights.
Mr.. Beck commended that they had no APP
plication to Cuba. Mr.. Beck further said
that Mr.. Lindsay's contention involved a re-
markable contention. He could not deny the
constitutional right of the government to
make the treaty of Paris, but his argu-
Iltul, III effect, OeIleS the ConStllutiOHdi
right of the government TO carry out the
stipulation of the treaty This doctrine.
tested by its inevitable consequence, is at
once seen 10 be unsound. If this court
were to adopt ii. and the President were
to withdraw the army from Cuba. and re-
move the existing civil government, there
would then be no government at all. In
the absence OF any government anarchy
might possibly result. This might lead to
the destruction of life and property, which
the United States, under the treaty of
Paris. has promised to protect. If. there
fore. Spain or any other nation, the lives
and property of whose citizens had been
thus sacrificed, were to call this country
to account for failure TO carry out our
treaty stipulations, the United States, if
Mr.. Lindsay's contention were adopted by
the court. would be in the position of as
sorting hat it had no power TO carry out
its own treaty obligations. Could" said
Mr.. Beck. "a more humiliating position
be imagined. or one more contrary 10 that
decent respect to the opinions of man
kind which Mr.. Jefferson made the key
note TO the great declaration"
After a reply by MIR. Lindsay, the court
took the case Under advisement.