The Washington times., 1901-06-30


justified before the witness left the coun-
try; that once gone extradition would be
as necessary before punishment when
the witness swore falsely here as when he
did so in Cuba =
Mr. Micou held that every advantage
favored taking the testimony in Cuba, as
neither the claimants nor the Govern
nent could compel the attendance of wit
nesses here, and to require the testimony
TO be taken here would give material ad-
vantage to claimants having the means
To bring their witnesses to the United
states; that the truth could best be got
ten at hy examinations in Cuba, where
the witnesses lived. where their reputa-
tons were known, and where the losses
occurred that in Cuba there was s.eater
opportunity both to get at the facts nee
essary to decide these cases iusOy ana
ntelligently, and also to detect the Of
fence of perjury. If committed.
Following Mr. Micou Mr.. Beall spoke
briefly regarding the relations of Cuba
TO the United States as such as would
permit the taking of testimony as if
within the territory of the United States.
pre1ne Court that Cuba was held in trust,
and asserted the principle that Cuba was.
to all effect. in the position of con-
quered country, the United States having
guaranteed to protect life and property
in Cuba. had also pledged itself to take
care of these claims, which were property.
Upon reconVening, after the noon inter
mission, Mr.. Morse stated that he had
Fuller, the Assistant Attorney General,
before the latter's departure, with instruc
tions to add thereto any point that he
should consider of moment in throwing
light upon the situa tion. Mr. Morse then
read MIR. Fuller's views. which may be
summarized as follows: That the act
creating the Commission needed amend
ment in several parts; that he did not
wish To be understood as holding that
testimony could not be taken and received
under the act. but that testimony could
flrsa h.afr
commissioner. ami the Commission had
no power 10 execute its mandates. Con-
tinuing on his own lines, Mr.. Morse pro-
ceeded to state that the anomalous posi-
ton of Cuba must be regarded as having
especial value. Its political relations to
the United States he considered impor-
tant. The poll -ical relation. however. ne
acknowledged was continually changing,
and what We're now the conditions he be-
lieyed might be entirely different when
the time for taking testimony should ar
rive.
The act, stated Mr. Morse. gave the
Commission authority to adjudicate, and
unless limited by some of the act was
sufficient. The'prescribed authority of the
Commission to appoint commissioners to
take testimony he construed to suggest
that testimony was to be taken elsewhere
than in the United States. From the
contents OF section Z of the act, the Com
mission Mr.. Morse said, might conclude
that it had the power to take testimony
IN Cuba, but no power to infiict penalties
Mr.. Morse made his chief point in con
clusion, stating that under present condi-
tions. to which the scope of the Com
mission must be confined, Cuba was un-
der the dominion of the United States,
and under this condition the United
States, through the Governor General
had full power to extend the penalties
provided in the act for the punishment of
perjury TO the island.
Mr.. Morse was frequently interrupted
by the Commissioners. Mr. Chandler de-
fined the situation at one time as follows:
The whole question is whether there is
anything in the act which limits the pow
er of the Commission in taking testi-
mony." Again Mr.. Chandler explicitly
voiced his opinion that 'he doubted If the
act gave commissioner appointed by the
Commission the power to take testimony
out of the United States Again Mr..
Chandler asserted that the only point is
whether the Commission can take testi-
mony in Cuba and infiict penalties and
compel its mandates" Judge Maury and
Mr.. Chandler both suggested that Mr..
Morse differed with the opinions of Mr..
Fuller as expressed in the brief prepared
by Mr.. Fuller and presented by Mr. Morse.
Judge Chambers saved what might have
been an uncomfortable situation by
kindly suggestion shat Mr.. Fullers brief
was nothing more than a fragment
Mr.. Rogers, for the Government, pre-
sented the final argument, commenting on
the fact that the attorneys for claimants
and the representatives of the Govern
meut were unanimous in their opinion
that not TO take testimony in Cuba in
support of claims would be denial of
justice. He discussed the difficulties or
securing within the United States evil
dence in support of claims.
Mr.. Rogers argued that Cuba was not
necessarily foreign territory, and could
be considered as part of the United
States for the purposes of the Commits
sion In taking testimony. Mr.. Rogers
was asked by one of the Commissioners
Of what country, then, he considered the
Cubans citizens, and provoked a smile
Ia hot
citizens of the world.
After the hearing the Commissioners
held a closed conference. lasting a con-
siderable time.