Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1904-12-21
GENERAL BROOKE SUED
A PECULIAR CASE GROWING OUT
OF THE OCCUPATION OF CUBA.
Claim That the O'Reilly Family Was
Deprived of Valuable
Concession.

Charles w. Russell special assistant at
| torney general of the Department of JUS
| tice, is in New York today to appear before
| the United States district court for the
! southern district of New York, in a peculiar
| case growing out of the war with Spain and
| the occupation of Cuba by the forces of the
| United States.
| The suit is against Major General John r.
| Brooke, U. s. A., and the plaintiff is the
| Countess of Buena Vista, Dona Maria Fran
| csca OReilly de Camara. She claims $780,
| 600 on the ground that General Brooke, as
| military governor of Cuba, wrongfully de-
prived her of private rights as "alguacil
| mayor de la Habana," an office that had
| belonged to her family for many years and
had netted them many thousands of dollars.
She it's owner by inheritance, she de-
clareS, and there was no law by which she
could be deprived of it. The office carried
with it the privilege of conducting the
slaughter of cattle and hogs in Havana,
and. of course, the right to charge a good
fee for this service.
Concession Abolished by Brooke.
The O'Reilly family is one of the most
famous of Spain and of Cuba. Its founder
was an Irishman who went to Spain and
| became distinguished general of the ar
mics of that country. In recognition of his
services and that of his family many fine
things were conferred upon them, the chief
of which was the slaughtering privilege in
Havana. The office was too un-American to
suit General Brooke and he abolished it. to-
gether with all its fees and turned the bust
ness of killing cattle and supervising the
work over to the municipal authorities of
Havana.
The contention of Mr.. Russell is that
General Brooke is not liable for any dam
age as an individual, since he was acting for
the government of the United States. His
acts were approved, it is contended, by the
President and the Secretary of War. Wheth-
er his abolition of the office subjects Cuba
to a claim for naturalization is a matter
with which this country has nothing to do.
General Brooke was not bound by any laws
of Spain, and in him were vested the most
widespread powers. AS to the claim of the
plaintiff that he departed from the proviS-
ions of article of the treaty of peace with
Spain and destroyed private right or prop
erty, the defense argues that private prop
erty was no more sacred in Cuba than in
But the main reliance of the plaintiff In
her suit is that this article provided for the
protection of property or rights which by
law belong to the peaceful possession of
property of all kinds, of provinces, munich
palities, private or public establishments
ecclesiastical or civic bodies, of private
individuals, of whatsoever nationality such
individuals may be-
Demanded by Public Good.
To this plea that her right was private
one Mr.. Russell devotes some attention. He
says the object of the treaty was to secure
from the United States that general meas
ure of safety for private rights which Is
usually accorded a matter of course upon
REIMBURSEMENT of authority. Gen. Brookes
order was based on 1.-The lawful interests
and general welfare" of Havana, and was
measure demanded by the public good es-
pecially in it's sanitary aspects. In this he
acted a G the representative of this country
and not an individual. But even if he
were personally wrong, or his government
wrong, the Platt amendment, dealing with
the American administration in Cuba and
the affairs of the island, plainly validated
all the acts of officials of the United States.
The manifest purpose of its ratification was
to impose silence upon the courts and au-
thorities of both the United States and of
Spain. Its ratification was equivalent to a
previous authorization of this particular
act, any other act, of Gen. Brooke.
1t Is also a well settled principle of law
that a government cannot destroy or dimin-
ish its power so that it cannot be freely
exercised by successors in authority. The
two parties to the treaty did not contem-
plate that Cuba was to be governed forever
according to the Spanish system; in was in
deed implied that Cuba was to assure an
American form of government and not con-
tinue the monarchial system of Spain. The
freedom of the police power of Cuba was
one of the principal concessions of the
treaty. The slaughtering of beef is police
power and a public right superior to any
individual one. Such an office could not
continue to be regarded as property or to
continue to exist Interchangeable and indie
structible. 1t is not clear that Article
was intended to cover such q right.
Mr. Russell closes his argument by a
statement that if decision is handed down
against Gen Brooke it would establish
serious precedent to plague representatives
of the government who have been serving
in Cuba, Porto Rico, the Philippines and
elsewhere.