The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-01-15
AGAINST
oNcLUpED FROM FIRST PAGE.


toned in the extradition act of June s,
1900, that does not nave some relation to the
safety OF life and property. And the pro-
visions of that act requiring the surrender
of any public officer, employee or depository
fleeing to the United States after having
committed, in a foreign country or territory
occupied by or under the control of the
United States, the crime Of embezzlement
or criminal malversation of the public
funds. have special application to Cuba in
its present relation to this country
The court declined. Justice Harlan stated,
to enter upon the question az, to what the
have been in the matter OF protecting life
and property in Cuba If not required to
do so by the obligations of the treaty of
Paris. That question:" he said, is not
open on this record for examination and
upon 1t We express no opinion. 1t is quite
sufficient in this case to adjudge, as we
do. that It was competent for Congress.
by legislation, to enforce or give efficacy to
the provisions of the treaty made by the
United States and Spain with respect to
Cuba and its people"
ey's counsel, the opinion says that, when
an American citizen commits a crime in
a foreign country he cannot complain If
required to submit to such modes of trial
and to such punishment as the laws of
that country may prescribe for its own
people, unless a different mode be provided
for by treaty stipulations between that
country and the United States"
1t was also argued on behalf of Neely
that as peace now exists I'm Cuba, and
has existed there since the Spanish forces
evacuated the island. the occupancy and
control of that island under the military
authority of the United States is without
warrant In the Constitution and Is an un-
authorized Interference with the internal
affairs of q friendly power and that, con-
sequently. the appellant should not be
extradited for trial in the courts estab-
lished under the orders issued by the mill
tary governor Of the island. In support
nf this nrnnnCifiQn III wa sold fhof The
United States recognized the existence of
the Republic of Cuba and that the war
with Spain was carried on jointly by the
allied forces of the United States and of
that republic.
A MERITLESS CONTENTION.
Replying to this point, Justice Harlan
said: apart from: the view that it is not
competent for the judiciary to make any
declaration upon the question of the length
of time during which Cuba may be rightly
occupied and controlled by the United
States in order to effect it's paciication-
it being the function of the political branch
OF the government to determine when such
occupation and control shall cease, and
therefore when the troops of the United
States shall be withdrawn from Cuba-the
contention that the United States recog-
nized the existence of an established gov
eminent known as the republic of Cuba,
out Is HOW usliS u Aiiiildfy VI executive
power to displace or overthrow il, is with
out merit.
1.-The declaration by Congress that the
people of Cuba were. and of right ought
to be. free and independent was not In
tended as a recognition of the existence of
an organized government instituted by the
people of that island in hostility TO the gov
eminent maintained by Spain. Nothing
more was intended than to express the
thought that the Cubans were entitled 10
enjoy-to use the language of the President
in his message of Dec. 5, 1S97-that meas
ure of self-control which is the inalienable
right of man, protected in their right 10
reap the benefit of the exhaustless treasure
of their country. Both the legis-
lative and executive branches of the gov
eminent concurred In not recognizing the
existence of any such government as the
Republic OF Cuba. IL Is true that the CO.
operation of troops commanded by Cuban
officers was accepted by the military au-
thorities of the United States in its efforts
to overthrow Spanish authority I'm Cuba.
Yet from the beginning to the end OF the
war the supreme authority in all military
operations In Cuba and In Cuban waters
against Spain was with the United States
and those operations were not In any sense
under the control or direction OF the troops
commanded by Cuban officers"
The final conclusion Of the court was an
nounced as follows: We are of opinion
for the reason stated. that the act of June
8. 1900, is not I'm violation of the Consfftu-
ton OF the United States, and that this case
comes within the provisions of that acf
The court below having found that there
was probable cause TO believe the appellant
guilty of the offenses charged. the order