The Washington times., 1901-06-30
HEARINGS In CUBAN CASES.
The Question of Legal Power to
Take Testimony in the Island.
Spanish Treaty Claims Commission
Hears Arguments on Its Right to
Receive Evidence Outside the Unit
ed States-Briefs of the Lawyers.

Hears Arguments on Its Right to
Receive Evidence Outside the Unit
ed States-Briefs of the Lawyers.
If a conjecture Of the probable ruling
of the Spanish Treaty Claims Commis-
sion in reference TO the important ques-
tion of the power of the Commission to
take testimony beyond the territorial
limits of the United States may be haz-
arded from the apparent disposition OF a
majority of the Commissioners, as eX-
pressed in questions and in direct state
ments Of opinion during the discussion of
the subject at a hearing held yesterday,
it is safe to conclude that the Commis-
sion Will find that it has no such power.
Tho hearing was a lengthy one, lasting
from II oclock in the morning, with a
brief interval for luncheon, until well af-
ter O'Clock All motions before the
Commission were soon disposed Of and
the question of taking testimony in Cuba,
Initiated by the Commission, with a re-
quest for expressions OF opinion from the
jurists interested in the prosecution of
claims before the Commission, was taken
up.
Frederick D. Mex nney, Benjamin
AIicou, of the law iIrm of Herbert &
Micou; Frederick Beal and Messrs.
Morse and Rogers, assistant attorneys,
representing the Government, took part
in the discussion All argued in favor of
the affirmative of the proposition, holding
that the Commission had the requisite
power TO take testimony in Cuba. The
accord of the Government and of the at
torneys representing claimants on this
proposition was a strange condition, made
no less so by the apparent opposition OF
that majority Of the Commission which
gave any expression OF views, TO the
position taken by the lawyers in their
arguments.
Mr.. Chandler. President of the Com
mission. did not hesitate to state. at one
time during the hearing, his conviction
that the Commission had no power to
take testimony. A grave defect in the
law creating the Commission. in its in
completeness in not properly defining the
powers of the Commission, no doubt eN-
lists, and should the Commission finally
rule that it has no power to take testi-
nlony without the limit of the United
States, further legislative action TO af-
ford that power, or to extend the power
to take testimony and infiict direct pen
aItics for perjury. viii be invoked
The Government, in the scholarly argu-
ment presented by Mr.. Morse, who seem
ed less disposed to view the question at
issue from the standpoint of self-interest-
as did the attorneys representing claim
ants-but rather as a question of fact to
be elucidated. claimed nothing more in
favor of his position on the question than
that the present relations of Cuba and
the United States gave the Commission
fun power to take testimony. He did not
believe that the Commission had any
power to infict penalties for perjury, corn
mitted before the Commission or its rep
resentatives, whether here or abroad,
and hazarded the opinion that the Com
mission had no power at all to enforce
any of its mandates.
The hearing was held IN the Commits
sion room, and commenced shortly after
II o'clock. William E. Chandler, presi-
dent; Gerrit ]. Diekema, James Perry
Wood, William a. Maury, and William L.
Chambers, comprising the fun Commits
sion, were all present. Upon the entrance
OF the Commissioners to the Commission
room, the assembled attorneys rendered
for the first time the courtesy of rising
and standing until the Commission was
seated
In the absence of the Assistant Attorney
General, William z. Fuller, the Govern
ment was represented by the assistant
attorneys, Messrs. Morse, Rogers, and
Charles +. Jones. of Indiana. Mr.. Jones
is a newly appointed assistant attorney,
on this his first appearance before it.
Among the attorneys representing
claimants present were Benjamin j. Mi
cou, Frederick BeaH Levi S. House. c. S.
walton, II. Randall Webb; Mr. Van Dyke,
representing Coudert Bros; W c. Wells,
Frederick D. McKenney, and others.
On the call Of the Governments 5 motion
TO dismiss the Maine cases for want of
Jurisdiction. Mr.. Morse explained that IN
the absence of Mr.. Fuller and in view of
the fact that the opposing attorneys were
not prepared to argue the motion, he
wished II postponed. This position was
mildly opposed by the lawyers represent
ing claimants, but the Commission direct
ed the reading Of the reply TO the Gov
ernments motion, setting forth that the
Governments course should have been a
motion in demurrer and not motion to
dismiss
No argument was heard by the Com
mission. and the motion was postponed,
subject to the call OF the Commission or
agreement of counsel.
After several minor motions had been
disposed Of, the Commission presented the
question propoundsd in regard TO the pow
er 10 take testimony without the United
States
prising sixteen pages of printed natter,
upon which he proceeded 10 elaborate or
ally. He prefaced his remarks with a re-
view of the situation created by the
treaty of peace, laying stress on the
agreement OF the United States 10 adju-
dicate and settle the claims OF its citi-
ZGflSs against St'.tll. Inc ADtNInlsSlOu u1d
been created by Congress in order, as
Mr.. Mckenney noted, to properly dis
charge the obligations assumed and i'm
posed by the treaty stipulation, and upon
II had been conferred jurisdiction 70 re
ceiYe, examine, and adjudicate all claims
according to the merits Of the several
cases, the principles Of equity and Of in
ternational law. Such duty. held Mr.. Nc
Kenney. and jurisdiction was not and is
not limited 70 some Of the claims speci-
fed.
Mr. Micou argued that the Commission
had fun judicial powers; that making
false swearing before it perjury could not,
under any construction Of law. limit ii
10 the United States in taking testimony;
that all courts and all pTevious commits
sious of international ava I'd took testi-
mony al over the world. 8fsd had never
been restricted 20 the countries where
they wtre situated because false swearing
before these tribunals constituted perjury;
1hst judicial tribunals We're never created
by: halves, and the power to determine
carried the power to examine, uutTam-
melcd boz either the possibility or the
probability that witnesses swearing false
ly might 90 unwhipped Of justice.
He argued and cited authorities that
perjury in proceedings before this Com
mission ia Cuba could be punished IN the
ted here. that there was a power 70 pun
fsh. and that as TO any greater difficult
ties iu catching the offender, the con-
Etructiou Of the statute had nothing 10
do with that. though practically there
would be nu advantage IN examining the
witnesses mere. because perjury could
rarely be detected during its commission,
needing the testimony Of two witnesses
70 convict. and arrest would rarely be