The evening times. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1895-1902, 1901-06-29
PRICE ONE CENT.
TREATY CLAIMS EVIDENCE.
Argument as TO the Taking of Tes<
timony in Cuba.
Messrs- McKenney and Mlcoa Reply
TO the Governments Contentgo9
on This POint-The Confederation
OF Motions in the Maine Cases.

to the Governments Contention :
on This POint-The CcnsIderation
OF Motions in the Maine Cases.
A hearing on postponed motions vas
held this; morning by the Spanish Treatys
Claims Commission All the members oE
the Commission were present and upon
their entrance to the Commission room
for the first time the assembled attorneys
rendered the courtesy of rising and.
standing until the Commission vas
seated In the absence Of the As-i
sistant Attorney General William z. I
Fuller, the Government was represented
by Assistant Attorneys Morse, Rogers
and Charles F. Jones'
Mr. Jones is newly appointed Assist.
ant Attorney, and was presented to the
/ Commission this morning for the firsE
time He is from Indiana
Among the attorneys representing
claimants present were benjamin ]. Mi
eou. Frederick BealI. Levi S. House. c. s.
Walton, H. Randall Webb; Mr. Van DYKE
representing Coudert Bros: W . Wells,
Frederick D. MeKenney. and others.
On The call of the Governments motions
10 dismiss the Maine cases for want Of
jurisdiction, Mr.. Morse explained that i'm
the absence Of Mr.. Fuller. and in view of.
not prepared TO argue the motion, he
wished it postponed. This position was
mildly opposed by the lawyers represent
ing Claimants. but the Commission direct
ed the reading of the reply to the Gcv-
ernments motion setting forth that Jha
Governments course should have been a
motion in demurrer and not a motion TO
dismiss
No argument was heard by the Cons
mission, and the motion was postponed,
subject to the call Of the Commission or
agreement Of counsel.
Mr. McKenney presented brief on the
question OF taking testimony in foreign
territory. He stated that he believed the
Commissions power TO take testimony
in any foreign country was defined in tbs
act creating it. Reviewing the position
held in The Governments argument that
in order to punish perjurers who falsely.
testified before the Commission or its rep
resentatives the crime must have been
committed within the confines of the
United States He urged that the powers
and duties Of the Commission were those
which Spain would have been compelled
TO exercise under international law in ad-
justing the claims. had they not been
assumed by the United States
Taking up the question of how perjurers
giving testimony before special commits
sioners with letters rogatory. represent
ing the Commission, can be punished ac-
eording to the laws of the United States,
he referred 20 statutes of Congress which
provide for the punishment for perjury
of these giving false testimony before
United States consular officers IN foreign
countries, whenever the power of arrest
can be put into active operation
According TO Wharton, Mr. McKenney
said, jurisdiction of a crime was acquired,
not because the criminal was at the time
of the crime within the territory of the
offended sovereignty. but because the Of
fence was committed against the sover-
eignty or its subjects
Mr.. MckeBney did not consider that any
should be had. in view of the
of the Philippines ana Cuba at
this time, in arTesting criminals, under
this statute.
MIR. McKeaney admitted that extradi-
ton had not been secured. within his
knowledge, under these conditions without
the consent of the accused to be extra
dited
Another point made by M MeKenney
was that the question Of accomplishing
the punishment of perjureTs was not vi
tai He claimed that the direct duty of
the Commission to take testimony in Cuba
and the Philippines was expressly in
piled in the statute creating the Commits
sion, and that the Commission had no
right to consider its power to infficr
penalty, but to consider the direct duty
imposed to take testimony
Benjamin J Micou. representing the
Law firm Of Herbert & Afieou. present.
ed brief relative to the power of the
Commission to take testimony outside OF
the United States Mr.. Micou held that
It could nowhere be found that the nu-
nerous provisions OF law for furnishing
perjurers in proceedings before different
tribunals had ever been held to operate
so as to limit the taking of testimony to
the country where the tribunal was sit
uated.