Omaha daily bee., 1912-05-26
DENY RIGHT TO SELL COFFEE
Lawyers and Judges Take Issue with
Government Counsel.
SURPLUS OWNED BY sac PAULo
Cho.te Asserts Property of Foreign
State Cannot be Dealt with
by the JadicisI DEPART

NEW YORK, May ACQUISITIONS OF In
ternational magnitude came 10 the fore
late today when the federal government
proceeded with It's newest move under the
Sherman law, 10 break up the Brazilian
coffee trust" Prominent counsel FLASHED
with the government attorneys and judges
Of the circuit court Of appeals took Issue
with some Of the propositions made by
the federal prosecutors. The issue mainly
resolved itself into the right Of the United
States government 10 seine and sell $40
10000 worth OF coffee. the property Of q
foreign state, because OF an alleged Illegal
combine In control Of the coffee market.
The coffee In question, approximately
$4,000 bags. has been held up under the
temporary Injunction against the New
York Dock company. Herman sielckeh
and others an alleged parties to the ''con-
spiracy.p and today's proceedings were
arguments for and against making that
injunction permanent United States Cir
cult Judges Laoombe. Coke. Noyes and
Ward reserved decision after hearing an
interesting exposition OF both sides.
Solicitor General Frederick w. Leh-
mann, who came from Washington to
move for the permanent injunction. and
United States District Attorney Henry A.
Wise led the governments case. while
Joseph II. choste made the principal
argument on behalf Of the defendants.
should Not seize Coffee.
Judge Lacombe. In reply to a sugges-
ton by Solicitor General Lehman. that
appointment OF q receiver to break up
the combine against lawful trade" was
justified. said the proper way Of pro-
cedure would be 10 compel the unlawful
combine to take the coffee back. not to
take II and sell II here.
Il disagree with YOU: answered Mr..
Lehman. The proper method Is to put
the coffee In lawful channels OF trade"
But n II was not bought here II has
mover been In the channels Of lawful
trade Of this country" objected Judge
Lacombe.
we are dealing with this coffee as an
instrument carrying out q plot TO defeat
the laws Of this country" Mr.. Lehman
asserted. Can Il be that persons
remaining out Of the country may break
It's laws without means Of getting at
them?'
you have Mr.. sielcken here. Is he not
subject to criminal prosecution asked
Judge LAcombe.
Mr.. Lehman answered that he was.
I'VE are proceeding against the con-
spiracy." said Mr.. Lehman. I'VE are
asking for a presentation Of the status
quo with other remedies to follow. since
the contract entered into In another
country has It's effect here. II is subject
to any laws Of this country which Il con
travenes here. When the government Of
Sac Paulo Ia Brazilian stste) bought cof-
fee and brought II here Il became q coffes
monopoly and subject to our laws here"
Choate for Defendants.
Joseph II. Choate took up the argument
in behalf OF the defendants.
Il shave always thought" said Mr.
chosfs. that the property OF foreign
state cannot be dealt with by the tudicia,
department at all. but must be dealt with
by the executive through diplomatic
sources. Wrongs inflicted by one nation
upon another cannot be redressed by the
judicial power. The right to redress Hes
wholly with the executive power. The
coffee has not done anything.
This Sac Paulo scheme was not IN
tended as q combine to raise the price OF
coffee. but to protect its cultivation and
its sale. They sold all that the trade wa,
willing to take and there Is no evidence
that the trade was willing to take more.
There Is every ground for q diplomatic
quarrel. IL there Is anything TO be done
/ II is against the government to which
this coffee belongs. II Is the duty OF rs
government to put q stop to IL IL has
been the policy OF this country 20 retain
friendly relations with our South Amer
lean republics. This judicial power Nigh,
undo all that the diplomatic corps has
succeeded in doing towards the friendH-
ness in the last fifty years. II would
also injure the trade relations which We
have tried to maintain. Every ground Of
international law. every ground Of ma
tional policy. demands this motion 20 b.
denied"
The motion was submitted on the ora
arguments.
4 -
Il - -