The Three Friends

ADJUDGED CASES

IX THE THEUNITEDSTATES, OP SUPREMECOURT

AT TERM, 1896. OCTOBER THE THREE FRIENDS.1 THE FIFT OF APPEALS FOR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT CERTIORARI H CIRCUIT. Argued 1, 1897. DecidedMarch February 15, 1897.

No. 701. admiralty if stand dismissed not amended When a libel in is ordered to prosecution appeal named, that time is within a time within amend, effect right of dismissal takes and the decree waiver immediately. cases, Appeals admiralty although In the decree of the Circuit Court court, may require any such case to be certi- made final this court authority determination, power and the same fied its review and with here, brought directly, the District Circuit as if it had been from exercised, power ordinarily Court; although to be is not justified instance. circumstances in this the allowance writ proceeded does Stat. The forfeiture of a under Rev. § vessel person persons charged depend the conviction doing the acts therein forbidden. participation Neutrality, strictly speaking, consists abstinence from war, public, private impartiality toward and in of conduct in a or civil Petitioner, States, The' v. title of this case is The United The docket etc., Napoleon Mont Friends, engines, B. Broward Steamer Three her Broward, claimants. calm

VOL. clxvi —1 TERM,

Statement of the Case. parties: peaceful both but the maintenance unbroken of relations be- powers peace two when the domestic of one of them is tween disturbed neutrality (cid:127)is not in the sense which the is used word when disturb- acquired recognition to have ance has such head as demanded the of bel- and, municipal administration, ligerency; mere of matter no nation permit territory can unauthorized acts of war within its in of infraction sovereignty, good friendly requires its while faith towards their nations prevention. 5283, “people,”'as forbidding fitting used in Uev. Stat. word the out § arming employed of vessels with intent shall be in the ser- people, foreign against vice of or to cruise or commit hostilities subjects, property foreign people citizens or of with whom the United peace, any insurgent body at States are covers conduct- insurrectionary hostilities, ing although recognized. belligerency its has not been political department Although government recognized of not has belligerent power, hostility engaged of the existence a de with facto Spain, warfare, pre- insurrectionary it has the existence of before, time, vailing sought at to be and since the forfeiture enforced incurred; sharply in this case was and the case illustrates distinction recognition belligerency, recognition of between and of a of condition political revolt; recognition between of the of in a existence war mate- sense, legal rial and of war sense. political having of the The courts' United. States been informed de- partment' arms, of the of an existence actual conflict of of resistance authority with which the United are on States terms peace and'amity, although acknowledgment insurgents of as bel- place, ligerents applicable has not taken the statute is to the case. made,, improvidently 'Fhe order the release the vessel was as it should released. T, The steamer Three Friends 1896, was seized November John’s, the collector of customs the district of St. to Florida, forfeited the United States under section of the Revised Statutes, and, November was thereupon, libelled, on behalf of the United the District Court States for the Southern District of Florida.

The first two of the libel the seizure paragraphs alleged and detention of the and the vessel, libel then continued : ‘ Third. That the said steamboat or steam the Three vessel, Friends,’ to on the on, wit, twenty-third May, day a.d. 1896, furnished, fitted out and armed, intent she should be in the service of a wit, certain employed people, certain then people armed resistance to the engaged gov- ernment thé in the island of King Cuba, to cruise Spain, FRIENDS.

THE THREE Case. Statement and hostilities citizens subjects, against prop- commit of Cuba, the island with whom the King Spain, erty at that are and were date at States peace. the United ‘ vessel, the said steamboat steam Three That Fourth. wit, on on, twenty-third Friends,’ day May, a.d. Broward and there one B. was then whereof Napoleon Florida, within the said southern district of master, fitted with intent armed, there furnished out, then and the said should Friends,’ ‘Three vessel, that said employed wit, in the of a certain in the service people, insurgents the Cuban Cuba, revolutionists, otherwise called island the- and commit hostilities cruise subjects, property island of Cuba, said King Spain, and were then at States are peace. with whom That or steam ‘Three vessel, “Fifth. said steamboat on, wit, Friends,’ day May, twenty-third a.d. N. was then there master, and whereof B. Broward one of the United and within States, waters within navigable and of this district of Florida the southern jurisdiction and certain then there, persons attorneys court, by unknown, furnished, fitted out and United States of the said of with and arms and munitions loaded armed, supplies being ‘Three then Friends,’ vessel war,- and the said steam it, being out and armed with one certain furnished, fitted and there to the said of the number the exact attorneys gun guns, unknown, thereof, and with munitions of war States there, then to in the service with the and intent, employed to certain then wit, of a certain engaged people, to of King Spain armed resistance intent commit and cruise and Cuba, of with the island and citizens property hostilities subjects, and on the Cuba, who, island the said King Spain, fitted aforesaid, furnished, last and so said date being day aforesaid, and there from the then aforesaid, and armed out, States, wit, from the St. waters the United navigable southern district of Florida, John’s within the Kiver, aforesaid, court within the jurisdiction proceeded in- with the aforesaid, the island Cuba upon voyage TEEM, OCTOBEE Statement the Case. tent to the form of aforesaid, the statute in contrary such case made and And that force and virtue of provided. acts in such case made and the said steam- Congress provided, tackle, steam her vessel, boat or engines, machinery,, apparel and furniture became and are forfeited to the use of the said United States. And Sixth. the said reason all attorneys say and that force of the singular premises aforesaid, statute such case made and the aforesaid and provided, described steamboat or steam Friends,’ vessel ‘Three her tackle, became and are for- machinery, furniture, apparel feited to the use of the said United States.”

And concluded for and monition and prayer process the condemnation of the vessel as forfeited. Attachment monition issued as having B. Broward prayed, Napoleon and Montcalm Broward, master and owners, intervened as for an claimants; of the vessel and her applied appraisement release on and filed the stipulation; following exceptions the libel: “ 1. Sec. violation of which the alleged said vessel is be forfeited, makes such forfeiture sought depend- ent the conviction of a the act or acts person doing denounced in the first sentence of said and as section, a conse- conviction whereas the quence person; allegations in said libel do not show what had been guilty persons acts therein denounced as unlawful. ‘ ’ 2. The said libel does not show the Three Friends fitted out and armed, to be fitted out and attempted armed, to be fitted out and armed in procured violation of said section. “3. The said libel does not show the said vessel was so fitted out and armed, or so to be fitted out and attempted or so armed, to be fitted out and armed procured or furnished, with the intent that said vessel should be employed service of a or state, or of foreign prince, district or colony, with whom the United States are at peace. “ 4. The said libel does not show whom said vessel was fitted so out. “ 5. Said libel does not show the service of what foreign THREE

THE FRIENDS. Whitney’s Argument for the

Mr. United States. district, state, body said politic prince, was so fitted out. vessel

“6. does not show The said libel that said vessel was so armed or fitted out or furnished with the intent that such vessel be service of should body employed politic recog- or known the United nized States as a body politic.” bond The vessel was at and a on $4000 appraised stipula- tion for directed she was to be re- $10,000, given upon leased! The cause came to be heard upon exceptions and on 18 the libel, decree was entered: January following “ This on to cause be heard to the exceptions coming libel and it is considered, been ordered having fully heard that said fifth and sixth be sustained second, third, exceptions and that the said libel, libellant have amend permission in event said libel not so amended within ten the same days stand dismissed and the bond herein filed be cancelled.”

From this decree United States, on January prayed United States Circuit Court appeal Appeals the Fifth Circuit, which allowed and duly prosecuted.

The errors following assigned: “ First. For that court over the libel- objection lants allowed steam Friends’ to the said vessel ‘Three released from bond. custody upon giving “ Second. For 2d, that the court erred 3d, sustaining 5th 6th libel of infor- claimants to exceptions mation of the libellants. “ Third. a decree For that court erred in dis- entering the libel of herein.” missing information On made to this court February application writ of from said Circuit certiorari to the cause bring up Court and sent and, down, Appeals, having granted the record was returned accordingly. for the United Assistant General Attorney Whitney

States. established: to be clearly seem following propositions That a accom-

(1) always recognition belligerency TERM, 1896.

6 Whitney’s Argument the United States. Mr. the fact that actual are hostilities a recognition plished by in progress. a civil sense war, ordinary That existence

(2) known what called be made is sometimes of that term, may a recognition insurgency. must there That to justify recognition belligerency (3) — mere of a war more than the existence civil

be something be must the nation which recognition impelled gives its of its those of do own so for protection rights citizens. of an as a body belliger- That recognition insurgent

(4) that insur- makes in the technical sense ent, phrase, Lawrence, of the war. for all state purposes body gent "Wheaton. Law, 162,163; Dana’s of International Principles §§ Law,. 23, note; Hall’s International Law, on International § 32, 4th ed. 35-37. pp.

The recognition belligerency consequences nor while neither an body'— increasing diminishing insurgent — are serious. The neutral of non-interference very duty abandon further- claims for on account nation must reparation its citizens hostilities. Its suffered by through damages visitation, must submit to the of blockade, merchantmen rights of contraband on the seas. search and seizure articles high should never be Hence a recognition given belligerency it on the above when becomes grounds necessary except in the rare instances when armed intervention stated, or justifiable.

Such a can often forced either party recognition an effective blockade. warfare by establishing It is into mari body forced when enters insurgent and maintains the- neutral time search right operations of war. The neutral thus forced vessels for contraband the vessels either belligerents -recognize insurgents for if molest of to them as third they parties pursue pirates, other, be one or the whatever the true definition must 210; be. The Malek 2 How. Adhel, See may piracy 408, Whar and auth. Dr. cit.; Ambrose Fed. Light, Rep. cit.; thereon in 33 Alb. L. J. and auth. criticism ton’s THE FRIENDS. THREE Whitney’s Argument for the United States. Dana’s .Wheaton Law, 122; Lawrence, International § § Gen. note; Attys. Op. no maritime and the war' is force,

When insurgents in a of not territory, recognition belligerency contiguous it as the to their neutral; harms them as well gives enemy seas which of search on themselves are rights high if should unable to utilize. Thus we be forced to recognize in hostilities Cuba as a civil war, technically present , thé of ammunition and other con- arms, speaking, shipment thé traband would become much more goods insurgents difficult. a

Hence neutral nation are recognitions belligerency the fact rare. that hostilities comparatively Recognitions in common. To are, however, are quite recog- progress nitions. Dr. the convenient Wharton has rec- phrase applied 3 Int. Law 2d’ed. 351; ognition Dig. insurgency.” Whart. Criticism of 33 Alb. L. J. 125. Case, Ambrose Light not an

The existence state is belligerency recognized There could be no this statute. express object requirement in bel between discriminating recQgnized unrecognized The words “district” and “colony,” “people” ligerents. ar.e not if are the ones belligerent only apt parties recognized not intended to be referred to. A belligerent recognized as á district, or as a but as or as people, princé ” a state. It often used as is true that phrase to a cannot be its use stat state. This present equivalent to a ute, because it was introduced as an amendment law which contained the state.” The new word is not to word already but is to be as mere some given interpreted surplusage, if 101 force Market Co. v. U. S. separaté Hoffman, possible. Justices, Pick. 115, 116; 573. This Opinion Enlistment to the British Act principle applied Foreign v. & Sillem, 431, 572, General 2 Hurlst. Coltm. Attorney Lord Coke that the then, 117. quoting Rep. Assuming, word is not used as the of a state or a nation, equivalent it. must be used the alternative sense of a of men less body than- a nation who are bound ties of blood, neigh together common or otherwise. borship, enterprise TERM, 1896. Whitney’s Argument for the United States. at the time world the Latin-American Situation act neutrality into as follows: classes, be divided bodies The contesting may colonies,whoseposition Spanish-American leading (a) — Whether or in doubt. was' belliger- as belligerents had been American revolutionists the South recog- ency administration depends in Madison’s question nized — in a much is necessary recognition bellig- how formality the President or it Secretary ? Is only erency recognized the fact to the world in a formal document declaring of State Or is also it to Congress? or communicating officers, or one of the Cabinet President whenever the in- instruction, or letter of transmitting official ordinary the term committee, uses “bel- to a formation Congressional Were it then so, war” ? This cannot be. or “civil ligerent” Monroe would been held President on the same principle of the South American independence gov- acknowledge 4 Wheat. 41. as as 1819. ernments early January, App’x, p. in The Conserva, method was held necessary The former 431, On this considered 437. Henry Clay Fed. principle Rep. at the time had not been of the that neutrality recognized March and Mr. 18, 1818, act (Annals Congress, p. 1415), have with Wheat. seems to (4 Wheaton agreed App’x, him Monroe view but President took (Annual opposite p. 23); President Madison had 2, of December used 1817). Message in his of December 1816. 26, very guarded language message on based his own Monroe’s view was probably language to 19, 1816, of State his letter Secretary January Onis, and his letter to minister, 10, 1817, January Spanish Affairs of the the Chairman Committee House Foreign and on John the circular Mr. Forsyth, Representatives, to all collectors of customs, Rush, Secretary Treasury, the admission to our of all 3, 1815, dated July directing ports circular, This named no however, insurgent particular flags. and no condition as to executive recognition. flag, imposed whose was states Monroe by belligerency doubtless those whose 1817 wrere independence recog and nized New Granada Venezuela (after- namely, THREE

THE FRIENDS. Whitney’s Argument for the United States. united as wards Buenos known Colombia), Ayres (officially — of South Provinces Chile the' America), revolts of Peru and successful Mexico been later than having That did not 1817. to recognition belligerency apply all minor has been ruled insurgencies expressly in The Anna court Nueva Liebre, Wheat. Certain districts whose Spanish Portuguese (b) belliger- — had not then been and never was

ency One recognized. — — these has been referred to. Paraguay This already may have attracted no attention, as our did not into come contact with it, informed of its existence. though probably 4 American State Papers, Eelations, Foreign 222,225, pp. 250, 265, 278, 339.

Second Buenos all only if not first of Ayres, however, of Latin America in trouble, powers make capacity was the now then world-famous General forgotten who held sway various ebbs Artigas, flows fortune on the bank of La east Plata old Eiver of Banda called him the Spanish Oriental, intendency Oriental and now known as the Ee Eepublic, independent his public claims would Uruguay. Any recognition offence, but to given only Spain, Portugal, even to Buenos for all three laid claim his Ayres, territory, and with all he three was at war. His main Monte city, video, control. Yet cruisers generally Portuguese under the to be flag,” commissioned “Artigan claiming all the- seas. did by Artigas, the main They injury H. E. Ex. complained government. Portuguese Doc. No. 32d 1st 193-200; see also The Cong. pp. sess. Gran Para, 7 Wheat. 471. Notices of his are proceedings in found 4 American State Eelations, at Papers, Foreign 219, 221, 173, 174, 268, 288, in 218, 225, 250, 289, and pp. 274, Wheat, counsel, 476-481- His had argument pp. country been claimed both had by Spain Portugal. Portugal surrendered it in but 1778, renewed the claim when the South It revolutions broke out. was the who Portuguese American and the was then for a finally conquered Artigas, country, time annexed to Brazil. In and 1818 the revolt Artigas TERM, 1896. Whitney’s Argument the United

Hr. States. as to have been directed seems regarded generally than Monroe’s rather against Spain, recognition Portugal “ the con- 1817, December, only applied belligerency out and the colonies,” by between was test pointed Spain 1Wirt. Gen. 249. General Attys. Op. Attorney — had been free This unfortunate island Ilayti. (c) long had not France, but its from independence sovereignty not us, been was so by prior recognized recognized time under domination. At that because was 1862, negro en- who were it was divided between two chieftains negro had not contest, but whose bloody gaged belligerency ( n ut Wirt As stated General Attorney recognized. by “our had those sov- Government never sup.), acknowledged war not even civil between recognition ereignties, mother said that themselves or their countries.” Henry Clay (cid:127)“ had as a civil war, etc., we war recognized it in our manner so it as that a case under arising regarded (cid:127) could be as a courts viewed the same case light occurring conflict South America.” Annals of existing Congress, 1425; March 18, 1818, p. — vrere the Amelia Island Galveston. These

(d) places claim- (their rendezvous of best-known privateers, Aury leader) revolu- and other Venezuelan, fly ing right Artigan, 1 Whart. Int. Law 50a. tionary They flags. Dig. § stated in his Monroe practically pirates, message Counsel further the words insertion of argued “ district or amend act of which was people” ment without was debate on adopted January probably due to General who was then Attorney- Rush, preparing 141, 561, 590; case Gelston v. 13 Johns. argument Hoyt, 3 Wheat. be the contest 278. But that case rélated to tween the whom chieftains neither of Haytian aforesaid, as,a belligerent.

It be added that had may John who had charge Forsyth, in the House of and 1818, of the acts of 1817 Eepresentatives at in Texas. State the time of the revolution Secretary He as in then of these acts evidently regarded operation nowise He dependent upon recognition belligerency.

THE THREE FRIENDS. Argument Whitney’s

Mr. for the United States. district directed the beforehand to attorneys enforce these laws should contest H. R. 24th begin.” 1st sess. Cong. 256, and directed 36, Doc. No. for p. enlistment prosecutions cause before insurgent Texas was independence see 3. Id., 37; declared. p. p. an

In insurrection broke out Canada. Belliger- was never Yan ency insurgents recognized. Burén, 1838, his annual shows that he clearly message regarded them in the same in which the Cuban insurrec- light present tionists A act was neutrality passed, regarded. however; the words district “colony, people” as sufficient for the ease. Act March regarded 10, 1838, 2, c. 5. The act 31, 1, two own its expired years by §§ limitation, §

If executive is necessary the statute recognition put had been When libel operation, recognition given filed, President messages proclamations Cleveland.

When vessel a citizens the United States belonging commits hostilities seas high friendly act is her She is and. forfeit) power, prima piratical. facie her officers and crew are liable to be owners, See hanged. Ambrose Fed. Law- cit.; auth. Light, Rep. rence, Law, 122; Dana’s Wheaton, International § § note. If the act is done in the interests district fyom for then it is freed people. struggling independence, and the is under a different imputation, punishment milder law. How existence of is the contest notice, established ? It is not It matter judicial proof. not in witnesses, its nature and, besides, proof by susceptible from motives of looks to the- Executive .the policy judiciary for information.

As it is not insurrection is for independence present of this whether necessary pursuit object inquire This of the statute. does prerequisite operation to be statute seems appear equally applicable required, like state, revolts the control of established already the recent Chilean like our Revolution civil war, rights, TERM, 1896.

12' Phillips’ Appellees. Argument for before Buenos revolution 4, 1776, Ayres before July in revolt the recent Johannesburg. proposed release of the vessel or for the The bond pend- stipulation if should law; and, authorized, not authorized suit is ing so a in the serious been denied case charge, the merits and of an affidavit of of a defence absence upon merits. William Hallett for

Mr. Phillips appellees. in which it is the variety ways attempted From “ it evident that what constitutes a is to state people,” liber much difficulty making experienced government with the facts. In it is some law places alleged agree revo referred to were certain insurgents, (cid:127)the persons; people in armed resistance to the lutionists, engaged government the libel an endeavor on There is part throughout Spain. “ to show a status of a so that General people,” Attorney he does refer to a it should people meaning simply appear from this But the endeavor meaning escape persons. take as will successful,because, has not been individuals you “ these statements of a arrange designa various people,” that the reference the matter comes to this, tions as may, you — individuals after allis only unorganized persons; must from the use of which the court draw signification ” “ General has the libel. Attorney the words people much to the too belligerency. significance question attached one this as He seems to controlling regard question does not rest But the decree Belliger case. point. that to constitute a important showing people,,r ency only must an actual within the there be either act, meaning and that de state, or de power facto, independent power or not be The real may may recognized belligerent. facto under is this: Can there be section question proceeding out charged fitting ship against parties a state or “a unless purpose being employed people,” a state in sense of the is shown that there exists every or else a de a state word; nations, family among facto FRIENDS. THE THREE Phillips’ Appellees. Argument form of a or government other political “a to be a or organization; people” claiming government That there must exist actually “a exercising sovereignty. ” in I am for, the sense is shown conclu people contending the mention the section of the words sively by subjects, or citizens, property people.”

Thus section 4, act of 3 Stat. now Rev. § Stat., to the of' force applies augmentation any ship of war or armed vessel within the United States “in the ser vice of or state district any foreign prince any colony, or citizens of people, belonging subjects district or state, prince, people.” How can there be unless that subjects people,” constitutes a de ? The jure Attorney defacto General assumes a which narrows the position controversy. In the court when below, the libel was the idea filed, pre- “ vailed that a within the meant people,” act, meaning and it was so any individuals, stated. But people, persons, “ now the General is driven to the a Attorney position must denote a must mean a an people” body, community, exercises or claims organization actually sovereignty to exercise over a there- sovereignty country. inquiry fore is reduced to this: Is there in shown the record, either ” “ in the libel or that there exists a otherwise, as is people ” “ contended now the United a States; wit, exer- or over Cuba either de or claiming sovereignty cising jure f The General mentions certain Attorney as persons defacto “ a He refers to them as insurrectionists, revolution- body.” ists; reference is made to the President’s proclamations as a status of “a The brief messages establishing people.” . “ This case a which has been says: brings up question recently ‘ much discussed'; words, whether dis- namely, any colony, trict or bodies, include like the people,’ insurrectionary present ‘ of whose Cuba,’ Eepublic belligerency, technically speaking, has not the executive yet recognized by department our Government.” I do not understand what is meant “ I it means expression, technically speaking.” suppose legally ” “ What is this which reference is made speaking. body TERM,. 1896. Phillips’ Appellees. Argument for

as Cuba? Is there such present any Republic ques- in case? tion I submit that there is not. The present General asks court Attorney contemplate the Republic for that of of Cuba for one When Only, purpose punishment. in for he has succeeded the Re- persons aiding punishing to the court: There is no Cuba, he such says public are the is no such They there people.” People republic, here a have now moment, dis- they the Mist. They can the court fact, a take notice of ! As matter appeared or of Cuba called anybody Republic Republic if the court could do I so, very glad Cuba? should the circumstances of this are inhibited case I think in this record. Neither the statements proclama- nor in his nor in the libel, President, tions messages, a of Cuba or mention of body Republic there any submit that the We Government has other body. of this case organized succeeded creating purposes or what is a community, body, government, political The reference in the same thing, power, people.” to certain revolutionists, is to persons libel insurgents, resistance armed Spain engaged has never conceded that Cuba as of Cuba. the island Spain her, nor has or a insurrection people” colony are there, it. It is true that there insurgents President stated them, if choose so to call revolutionists, persons you You in armed resistance Spain. may designate engaged call does and them brigands, them the Spanish government n banditti,outlaws. them the character You bestow may What Americans, patriots. eyes they possess or can be drawn from one definition distinction any legal Por just these you legal purposes might designations? to all fail define another; well use one these terms they “ The case is not refer- a strengthened people.” appellant’s documents; You will look in vain in ence to executive of a find of “a of these to recognition government or of a arisen actually power, having sovereignty people,” in his The President refers to proclamations Spain. “ is in the island disturbances existing very Cuba.” civil Re THE THREE FRIENDS. Phillips’ Appellees. Argument for He was not so as the use of .willing language.

careful now exist- is to General acknowledge republic Attorney Such concession over Cuba. sovereignty claiming ing he was desirous involved would many problems further insists that General The Attorney avoiding. ” of this contained a description body President’s messages vessel to in whose service it is alleged or sovereignty these are as cautious as But communications be employed. not to commit this to a concession country proclamations in Cuba a there exists sovereignty government opposed On asserted that of is definitely to . contrary Spain. on that island is the sovereignty sovereignty only Spain. of State in for 1896,

The his communicated report Secretary the President, says: Congress by far information is not no shows, So as our there effec- only in the territories tive local insurgents is not but there even estab- overrun, tangible pretence (cid:127) Their confined administration anywhere. lish organization, to the military shifting exigencies operations centres, without definite. hour, nomadic, lacking There features of most elementary municipal government. the nucleus of statehood. The machinery nowhere appears legitimate rights powers exercising sovereignty, de obligations.which sovereignty responding facto states, face of other entails equal rights conspicu- It is not discern homogeneous ously lacking. possible functions of exercising political entity, possessing itself, if left maintaining administration, capable, nor- and sustaining own territory its orderly government the external mal family relations governments.” for 1896, in his President, says: message that civil on, govern- As contest has pretence gone is able to so far as island, Spain ment exists on the except does abandoned. Spain keep maintain has been it, practically less more on foot such a imperfectly government, But, suburbs. immediate exception towns and their large is either over anarchy the entire given made, country being TERM, 1896. Phillips’ Appellees. Argument for Mr. of one

or.is or the other subject military occupation It is indeed on reliable at that, reported authority party. the commander-in-chief of the the demand of army, insurgent now Cuban has all government given putative up attempt functions, exercise its leaving government, confessedly, -reason it there the best is have (but supposing always in on . . But . merely been fact) government paper. as the and restricted Spanish government imperfect — no other exists unless there the will of the be, island may command of a officer district particular military temporary as a of can be species government.” dignified denies existence The President actual only those insurrection, on even part government he that there are scattered says bands, claim government; authority opposing wandering nomads, is his those whom the Such description Attorney Spain. ” as a now of Cuba! General Republic designates ” “ civil is a novel one. The disturbances This prosecution two of Cuba existed for and this is the island years, on of the kind instituted under section first proceeding yet as covers all Section military enterprises, set foot this hostile country undertakings phases out enlist- military ships, by expeditions, by fitting 5286 commissions. This section ments, applicable as in inwar, well time of time of time as peace in time of and must war, war well unrecognized It embraces whole field hostile admitted operations. it a States to makes crime laws of the United begin soil such hostile them on from on our carry operations It is a domestic criminal domestic stat- hence. statute ! How different is section 5283 The wholly. ute explanation all it has sec- along generally supposed out of war tion of cruisers applied treating fitting only where there were war, where there belliger- open public of that where there sense ents, neutrality legal term. reason is at- this late day’ why proceeding real is' to obtain a vessel to,

resorted condemnation THREE FRIENDS. THE Appellees. Phillips’ Argument for case declared this court Wiborg lawful; what doing war to those supplies the is, transportation engaged to It is by resorting in insurrection. proposed, proceedings in a court of vessel to forfeiture of the take admiralty, for a of a trial citizen the the by from the alle right jury away a, the seeks to exact crime for a government gation if was under But the section 5283, proceeding forfeiture. would a trial only military enterprises, jury prohibiting the could not but in addition exact be necessary, could existed in the a minds of forfeiture. No'doubt 1794, the amendment to the act of the who framed jurists the 1817, the iri act of the contained regarding meaning n term That has been defined “a already expression people.1’ maritime insurance. Nesbitt v. in the law Lush regarding decided Bench in 1792, 4 T. R. was by Kings ington, It was an before the act of 1794. two adjudication years some and the most argument by great importance, bar. A members of considerable English ship approach force Irish coast was set organized upon by ing her until the holding ship, cap purpose seizing them the which she corn, should sell tain agree This do. loaded, at a proceeded price they stipulated. awas restraint or detain whether this arose, The question “ in the it was held ment negative. by people,” in that the word con that the use of said, “people,” court “ Lord meant a nection, government. people,” power, ” “ referred said, word ruling power Kenyon people observed, Buller that it denoted Mr. Justice country. whatever that might be; the country, supreme power did not individuals that the word apply “people” nations their collective capacity. than that was better séttled No of jurisprudence question “ of detention under such losses policies,

appertaining condition or nation, of what all princes people, kings,' wrork, In authoritative Abr. 113. soever.” Dane quality under the author these says Marshall on Insurance (1810), of all the in the words, the same policies which are nearly for all losses occa liable countries, insurers are maritime VOI.. CLXVI —2 TERM, 1896. Phillips’ Appellees. Argument arrests or detention

sioned insured ship goods authority any prince public to exer body claiming cise what soever.” sovereign power'under JB. pretence 1, ch. In the same sec. section the author observes that the ” means, word people policy not a people nation, ’ ‘ to, mob. the -word is not be By people under policy stood or lawless rabble that any promiscuous may guilty — it means a attacking detaining ship: people a nation in its collective is, and political capacitj’.” In Park Mar. Ins. Am. ed. (2 is said: “What 1799), ’ ‘ the word this clause of a of insurance means policy has settled.” lately judicially v.

In Mauran Insurance 1,Wall. Company, this court construction, confirms such and discusses its our bearing upon acts. neutrality

Chancellor Kent was to the effect that the quoted stipulation of at sea, arrests, and de- indemnity against takings restraints all tainment of refers kings, princes people, only acts or government government whether purposes, right 3 Com. note 6thD, edition. wrong. illustrations

Other were made of de governments facto, for certain are which, if purposes, “ de constructed regularly court, in jure nationalities : The the case Nesbitt 4 T. R. Lushington, described fitly v. the the character of government the clause contemplated in. restraints, the etc., or respecting viz., kings, princes people, ‘ £ £ the the the- ruling power country,’ the supreme power,’ — the be’ power country,‘whatever might necessarily a lawful or one that power government, had been adopted into the of nations.” family

The court concluded that the so-called Confederate govern- in the ment, of the being possession of the supreme power (cid:127) over which district its country jurisdiction extended, was a de which could facto, make a capture within the of the Mauran meaning policy. v. Insurance Co., 6 Wall. 1, 13. ” exists the No reason word why should have one people in a maritime sense used when but a different sense as policy, THE THREE FRIENDS. Appellees. Phillips’ Argument for The one assures the protection against

used in. statute. while the other acts. Let a prohibits acts of such people,” in view of this definition us settled accepted suppose case Mauran v. Insurance in the this court Company, Three Friends, Wall. owners being about obtained maritime insurance a a Cuba, take upon voyage to restraints of clause as vessel, containing kings, The while on her vessel, voyage, princes people. “ in civil disturbance Cuba.”. a arrested by persons engaged in the United An action insurers States brought against of Florida. The District Court for the Southern District ques- “a tion arises to whether restraint people” within the of the instrument. The District Court meaning term, of that that the decides view meaning accepted restraint was not a dismisses proceeding. people,” the United States At the same time General Attorney court, a libel of condemnation in the same files fitted out in this had been same she vessel, ground described the same be used the service of country that he can decide the other suit. District only Judge He has expression. already meaning passed word when not admit a of the same could different meaning re- In both instances word used act Congress. whether ferred to a right power, community, government, mari- hand, On the one there was provision wrong. certain time law insure himself against enabling party On maritime the other hand, provision losses. there act punishment subjected party Congress The court certain maritime loss on account of operations. “ un- the a a different term not people,”' give could meaning words word with other the less association compelled the in the act. therefore whether is, The legislature question from what was in the of the word meant different use something it. effect, In indicated other word associated by every not a that the rule noscitur sociis the Government contends “ district, state, that while the words any prince, applicable; of sover- are words are all words all colony,” government, of the words the all refer to yet signification eignty, powers, TERM, 1896. Phillips’ Appellees. Argument “ That is different. it does not people,” necessarily any apply or body any sovereignty, claiming sovereignty, may as a denote persons unorganized political entity. “ cannot be This disassociated from expression, people,” —it terms which state, precede foreign prince or district. any colony of Lord In the Nesbitt v. Kenyon language Lushington, ’ ‘ of the word be discovered meaning people may

supra, a words, noscitur soeiis. It means, here by accompanying power country.’” ‘ruling would be It if all the other strange, light history, refer to in their collective and terms ca- political a to be body while politic assuming body pacity, politic, “a be construed to refer in people,” this expression, may sense to their individual another persons capacity. What, actual situation of world,” use of Chief Justice Marshall ? It was the language situation America, and of South America, which, especially by prov- districts, countries, inces, state of peoples, recognized war The act of 1794 against Spain. public only applied did states, not these new princes contemplate belliger- therefore, in 1817, it was found ent powers, necessary the law to the actual I situation the world. adapt only dwell upon belligerency purpose signifying desig- or asserted nated sovereignty yet recognized, or admitted into as such of nations. independent family It is stated General this act of before Attorney the word “state” referred to such those of powers South and that it could not America, have been intended inserted the “a words unless Congress people,” meant else than state, re- something had unless they to a collection of ferred General persons. Attorney in addition to that was the use intended says something vord claims that the act of covered people,” I submit this was not the belligerents. interpretation act 1794. Chief Justice on the dis- Marshall, circuit, claimed that the words or state” case of covered the “prince one South American I refer to belligerents. THREE FRIENDS.

THE Phillips’ Appellees. Argument for Mr. Justice Marshall of The Santissima Trinidad. Chief case

remarked as : follows of be the whether a section doubt, However serious may its come within a nation independence may struggling no that .such of the act there can be doubt [1794], prohibitions come of the law of within more ample provisions if she is nations. Buenos be a state or not, Whether Ayres ain make war condition to claim character she the laws of is bound to rights respect belligerent, her war; and which concedes those rights government is bound unless it means to maintain its own neutrality, if she an ac- become a as were war, entirely party her no more recruit state. She has knowledged right would have, within the States than navy Spain her from much bound restrain using is as government 1 Brock. our war as to restrain her enemy.” strength in this was filed 1817. 488; Wheat. 283. The libel case ” was state of the words meaning foreign prince v. 3 Wheat. announced Gelston Hoyt. fitted out

In that the that case the evidence was ship should armed with intent that she employed which of San service of that island Domingo part commit Pétion, then hostilities under the government the island San Domingo subjects part whioh was then Christophe. under government could be The court held neither of these allegations United States inasmuch as supported, “as a had foreign never either of these governments recognized or state.” prince or as either as belligerents had not been

They our Government the contrary, communities. On independent had the French possessions, were acknowledged they parts there- our trade France, and had regulated, requested with. of the United

In Court v. the Circuit Palmer, United States Judges Story States for First Circuit, consisting certain which divided Davis, questions, opinion upon as follows: certified here. Some these . TERM, 1896. Appellees. Phillips’ Argument

n district or th. revolted “5 Whether people, their mother their thrown off country, have allegiance ' the United States as a been sov- by have never acknowledged to issue nation or power, authority ereign independent of the on the seas commissions to make high captures persons, of the <of the mother and vessels subjects country property . . . retain their who allegiance. Whether an act which would be deemed a 6th. robbery

“ seas, if done without a lawful commission, pro- high considered as a on the from seas robbery tected being high is done under or the the same act a commission color when commission from district or of- a colony, foreign from their have revolted native and have which allegiance, declared themselves and and have independent sovereign, to exercise the and authorities of an inde- assumed powers and but have never sovereign been government, pendent or as an or acknowledged independent sovereign or nation the United States or other by government by any or state, prince sovereignty.” foreign or 10th. Whether district who have any colony, people, native revolted from their and have assumed allegiance the exercise themselves independent power, sovereign can be deemed court the United States an indepen- or nation or dent until have been sovereign government as such of the acknowledged by United States; and whether such be can acknowledgment proved a court of the United States otherwise than some act or statute or resolution of the of the United States, Congress some or other act of the execu- public proclamation public tive of the United States authority directly containing announcing acknowledgment, receiving publicly an ambassador or other minister acknowledging public from such district or and whether such colony, people; can be mere inference from the acknowledgment proved by acts instructions of the executive private private when no States, has ever public acknowledgment made, and whether the are courts of the United States bound take notice of the relations judicially existing THE FRIENDS. THREE Appellees. Phillips’.Argument toas states and United States their colo- foreign sovereignties, nies dependencies. Whether, case of a civil 11th. war between a mother' and its different country subjects parties deemed, to neutral nations, are to enemies respect war,” entitled . . . to each other, rights Marshall, 626, March Wheat. Chief Justice observed : court, delivering opinion The first four relate the construction questions ‘act for crimes of certain 8th section of punishment seven United States.’ remaining questions an or other estab- colony portion rights respect has itself independent lished empire proclaimed its claim nation, indepen- asserting maintaining dence arms.” by in the certified the Both this observation question ” “ we are con- construed in the sense for which

(cid:127)word people than that better definition of can be made and no tending, or It to a power the Justice. foreign Chief by applies given of a asserts and which foreign empire rights part for its contending independence.” of a further Chief ustice observes that rights part The J for its which asserts and is contending of a foreign empire, which be observed the conduct must by independence, section of an courts of the Union such subjects towards of this coun- before the tribunals who may brought empire difficult. . '. They delicate . belong are try, equally those can what law shall who declare more properly with in such a who nation respect can be; position place wise; shall to their own as, appear judgment, powers foreign than to relations, all to whom are entrusted its foreign is confined whose well as appli- tribunal duty power for it. cation of the rule which may prescribe legislature one a nation itself such contests engage In .the may observe absolute other; neutrality; may may party Or make limited state may the new absolutely, recognize if It of it. be said gov- may generally, recognition civil neutral and the existence remains ernment recognizes TERM, 189C. Phillips’ Argument Appellees. its courts cannot consider as criminal those acts of war, hostil- war authorizes and which the new which ity government may its To direct decide otherwise would be to enemy. determine that the war one of the was prosecuted parties and would be the nation to unlawful,- which the to'arraign court the party.” belongs against He concluded'that vessels in the service persons employed “of a self-declared to be maintain- government,” acknowledged war, its existence must be permitted ing separate prove the fact of their in such service actually employed being would be sufficient to same testimony prove vessel service of an ac- person employed state. knowledged ” district or are thus made to refer to Any colony, state or self-declared unrecognized portion an established its claim to empire asserting independence by v. Palmer, arms. United States Wheat. 610. Justice also declared “that Chief the title of an act furnish control,

cannot some aid in what may shoeing mind of the legislature.” we have been That the provision considering only applies Avarand the as towards duty recognized public neutrality when we ex- belligerents, clearly foreign powers appears amine the executive and history legislation, legislative. On December South American wars then President Madison communicated to raging, Congress following message:

“It found that the laws have not the existing efficacy of violations of the necessary prevent obligations as a nation at United States towards peace belligerent par- and other unlawful acts on ties, seas, armed high within the waters of the vessels United States. equipped “With a to maintain more view due effectually respect to the and to laws, character, to the the neutral and pacific relations of the I States, United recommend to the considera- tion of of such further Congress expediency legislative vessels may requisite provisions detaining actually in a course of with a warlike force equipped equipment FRIENDS.

THE THREE Appellees. Phillips’ Argument for Mr. States; the United or, case

withjn the jurisdiction or commanders of from the owners be, obtaining may the abuse of their securities against vessels adequate in such with the armaments, exceptions provisions proper furnished merchant vessels defensive for the cases on distant usual dangerous expeditions, armaments stores our military permitted by commerce a private the law nations does require laws and 14th 2d Annals of sess. Cong. Cong. States prohibit.” 1079, 1080. the chairman of the Forsyth,

On January Delations, afterwards Committee on Secretary Foreign Monroe, a letter to Mr. addressed State, Secretary, them State, as follows: on Eelations I am instructed the Committee Foreign has been to the what information given Depart- inquire intended violations of violations or ment of State States of the United Powers foreign neutral obligations in our of vessels war ports; arming equipment under the have been commenced what existing prosecutions offences; of such what commission laws to per- prevent of the been consequence sons have discharged, prosecuted and the force, defects of the laws now particular provisions for the want of which found that have been insufficient Annals of escaped.” deserving punishment persons sess., 1080.. 14th 2d Cong. Cong. to obtain the in order information was written

This letter to exist- amendments for the proper framing requisite which had law, message, ing pursuance President’s referred committee. mind seen underscored it .is From passages directed to prevent and of the Executive solely Congress States as a neutral of the United violation of the obligations in the- as mentioned towards message parties,” belligerent as mentioned President, or “foreign powers,” of.

letter of Mr. Forsyth. 10, 1.817,communicated on State Secretary January the Committee on For- documents bearing inquiry TEEM, OCTOBEE 1896. Phillips’ Appellees. Argument Mr. was these Belations. communication from Among eign district Louisiana

ithó enumeration of attorney giving in cases which individuals have been for in- prosecuted to' our in aid of infringe fringing attempting neutrality of New which vessels have been Spain, governments and libelled under the act of the 5th of seized June, 1794” (lb. p. 1082).

On -Mr. from the January Committee Forsyth, a bill Belations, our neutral Foreign reported defining as to out of cruisers more than had fitting obligations fully done act of but which been still retained previous words state.” Annals of 14th “prince Cong. Cong. sess., 2d

The debate the House on the bill for enforcing neutrality and exhibits the clear extensive, of Con- understanding the amendments were for gress purpose preventing American then aid to the South provinces, recognized bellig- and that the as to out erents, of vessels was provision fitting aid solely prevent country foreign intended would violate our at war as neutral powers obligations. had It was developed strong pressure brought our Government to to bear strengthen neutrality the South American law order colonies from prevent aid here, and necessary obtaining preventive measures minister. by Spanish suggested the bill were founded on the alle- objections only that it went too far in the enforcement of our neutral gation towards It contended was, indeed, obligations belligerents. Mr. the doctrine of had no Bandolph neutrality one case, because application party this Government as independent. He was answered Mr. who said: Clay, “"Whenever a war whether between two exists, independent states or between of a common of but he knew parts empire, two relations which other could stand towards powers The one was that of and the other belligerents. neutrality that of a He from belligerent. hoped gentleman Yirginia did not mean to contend (what would seem to be a conse- FRIENDS. THREE

THE Appellees. Phillips’ Argument for and to the war that we were a party opinion) quence his. colonies. her of Old Spain ally against the contest in a state neutrality respecting then Being whether it, pro- to and bound maintain question of that to the of the bill were performance visions necessary duty.

sidered Gentlemen as intended merely ^[*] have contended ^[*] to enforce ^[*] that this bill our own laws *' ought ^[*] to be con- — as a to war now ex- no relation municipal regulation having to the true deceive ourselves as It to isting. impossible on it what dénomination Bestow character of the measure. will it a law, it as may, you you please, disguise a law to discountenance understood world whole in a colonies state American aid South being given country.” Annals of of revolution parent Cong. against 14th sess., 741, 2d 742. Cong. in common

In to Mr. Mr. Calhoun answer Clay, expressed of- the for the cause his wishes with other gentlemen good mother but colonies country, South American him to would never influence permit that such wishes neutral violation of our obligations. to of the contest

He alluded nature existing .the to our its analogy acknowledged Spanish provinces, all enlisted our own situation 1776 sympathies, was that we, of us being could be patriots expected their efforts or to weaken injure should do neutral, nothing their cause. had that the law of

On he a later occasion remarked not one two powers, a war between independent contemplated if the defect colonies; its between mother country in the war character law our neutral could not preserve to remedy. adopt now the South he was willing existing Ib. 752.

Mr. Lowndes said: between of war to the case

“The law of 1794, only applying to extended to be it no doubt, two states, ought, independent her to between the contest referred Spain comprehend TERM, 1896. Phillips’ Appellees. Argument colonies, not, when are carried prosecutions court up for breaches of the that redress we law, deny profess give. It some him, inadvertence, however, com- appeared mittee had not far the act of gone enough amending if it be amended so as to apply governments to be etc. lb. acknowledged independent,” bill, as it the House, contained the words passed district or in addition to “colony, the words people,” “prince or state.” lb. 768. In this form was the Senate and became adopted by material, an amendment not

law, with here lb. 205. The court notice that the will act March 3, 1817, Stat. is entitled An act more neutral effectually preserve relations of the United States.” act This deals entirely the out or of armed cruisers of war. fitting employment

Those amendments were our Government urged upon by as in order to include the South necessary, American Spain “for the wars, the purpose armaments putting stop different Union, violation making parts of the law of nations between his treaty existing Catholic and this Chevalier de min- Majesty Republic.” Onis, Spanish of State, ister, 28, Secretary February Soon after the bill became the law of as early 1817, March State wrote to the Secretary Spanish minister, direction of the President by enclosed copy “ act which the President trusts that the Spanish will a new on the of the United government perceive proof part of a desire States to cultivate friendly towards dispositions Amer. State 188, 189; Spain.” Foreign Relations, Papers, 3 Whart. Int. 560, 396. Dig. § declarations Executive show that from the be- of the South American revolutions been rec- had ginning this ognized belligerents by country.

President sent a Monroe, message Congress which he said: States Through every stage the United conflict maintained an have aid to neither impartial neutrality, giving in men, of war. parties munitions money, ships

THE THREE FRIENDS. Phillips’ Argument Appellees. contest of an ordi- have light regarded They between but as a civil war rebellion, insurrection or nary as to neutral nearly equal having powers equal rights.” parties minister, Gorostiza, In 1836 Mr. Mexican complained Texans treated as that the our being bellig- had not erents, he said Texan movement yet although n arrived (cid:127) at Americans which those of the point Spanish the United them the same had attained when States allowed right.” in his announced Mr. Monroe,

He cites principles March which he 8, 1822, says: message acknowledged rights The United States of na- were entitled the law they (the Spanish provinces) so soon movement as- as their had tions, and as belligerents, form as to render their consistent sumed such steady and from that had been ultimate success period they probable, their war into to enter with vessels of the ports permitted States,” etc. these United until such the minister inferred that movement

From form as to render such a and consistent had steady acquired ultimate said in their success of the provinces probable the United States neither acknowl- against Spain, struggle nor ad- their as belligerents possession any rights edged their vessels in the American mitted ports. com interval between the there was a

He concludes great at which of the movement and period mencement deemed the steadiness and could have consistency acquired H. R. Doc. 21th President, of the. Message requisite. 2d sess. 136. p. Cong. the Secretary to this communication Mr. Forsyth

in answer President, to allow the in the name declined, of State He said molest her. of the Texan vessel or otherwise seizure with that such course was accordance principles observed this Govern- which have invariably practice o.ut of the revolution ment from first among breaking on this continent to the time.” Spanish provinces present It is he the exclusion the vessels obvious, says, the one from the of the United States and ports party TERM, 1896. Phillips’ Appellees. Argument would be of those of the other inconsistent admission mes- President, the same neutrality, yet an impartial ‘ has Mr. Gorostiza states from which quoted, through sage contest the United States have remained the whole of this the utmost neutral, have fulfilled with all impartiality character.’ In a incident to that mes- previous obligations ‘In the civil war observes, December he 7,1819, existing sage and the this between provinces hemisphere Spain Spanish care has been taken to enforce the laws intended greatest Our have continued neutrality. preserve impartial ports to both to be and on the same conditions.’ open parties equally This refers to the whole of the contest, plainly language is not to be the President understood his mes- subsequent to which Mr. Gorostiza has referred, sage, intending say of either that the vessels to enter party only permitted of the United States from the when ports the suc- period of such cess to be The party appeared construction probable. Mr. Gorostiza which has given he particular passage has cited is hot contradicted other only from the passages the same executive officer, still more messages strongly, if the uniform acts of this possible, government and similar cases. It is a well-known fact that the vessels of the South American were admitted into the provinces ports under United States their from the flags own other commencement of the revolution, and it is true that equally the various civil contests that throughout have taken at place ' different the states that from that periods among sprung revolution the vessels of' each of the contending parties been alike to enter the permitted this It ports country. has never been held as a to the exten- necessary, preliminary sion rights that the. chances of either, hospitality war should be balanced, of eventual probability success For determined.. has been suf- deemed purpose ficient that the had declared its and at the party independence time was it. . . . exclusion of actually maintaining the vessels of those of Texas-'while Mexico are admitted is not deemed with the strict it is the compatible neutrality desire and the determination of this to observe

THE THREE FRIENDS. Appellees. Phillips’ Argument for

Hr. contest between those countries.” in respect present 2d 105, 30, 1836; Doc. 24th sess. H. R. September Cong. 509. Law sec. 1 Int. Dig. p. with our for-

The declarations department charged which the relations state the historical facts legis- eign lation now under review is which were largely dependent, for its enactment." inspiration relations Such was the actual condition of the foreign amended, when the act was country neutrality, as to armed which would cover words cruisers, by inserting pf form colo- war then every wagéd by recognized being such contest nies or Every dependencies independence. words was covered described, either by prince, each of ex- or a these state, a a district people, or bel- de used to some power designate pressions being facto ligerent. declared our contestants, such government Between

n would neither fit out allow would enforce neutrality, war in our vessels ports. contem-

It is not should Congress strange in a provision except enforcement neutrality plated It could not case where suppose there belligerents. in our when there be fitted out war would ports ships would our Government sup- was no war, recognized of war and state yet a fiction port recognize refusing to such a state. measures, enforce only applicable war civil should ever that if a It was natural to assume States the United would break out on American continent on an level it as both equal parties recognize place the enforcement neutrality. regards 337, the In Wheat. Trinidad, The policy Santissima the United is thus declared : States has United States and her colonies existence of a civil war between Spain neutral between has avowed her to remain determination us a Each therefore deemed by belligerent parties. party us, far as concerns nation, rights so having, sovereign war.” TEEM, OCTOBEE Phillips’ Appellees. Argument of enforcement in so far as we have neutrality, has been in it, accordance with these views.

considering In the case of its Texas, was from the belligerency declaration of time the was independence announced, which outbreak of the revolution. contemporaneous That and out provision cruisers regarding arming fitting in our in enacted had in view ports, originally only restrictions and neutrality applied belligerent powers alone cannot doubted.

This directed provision principally against practices Genest, on behalf of the French acting government, during then in the wars raging Europe; Its is traced : clearly origin

“The and practice commissioning, equipping manning in our to cruise on vessels of the ports belligerent parties and is entirely disapproved, Government will equally repetition . take effectual measures to prevent it.” 3 Jeff. 105 4 do. 34. Works, ; (cid:127) The this in found keynote.to President legislation Wash- December 3, 1793, which he ington’s message, says: “ The original arming vessels equipping ports States of the by any United for mili- belligerent parties offensive or services, defensive, tary is deemed unlawful.” “ Mr. Wharton treats the under the head of provision Issu- cruisers,” ing belligerent which proposition he announces as the result of the is that the legislation “ States is bound to restrain out and fitting armed sailing' cruisers of 3 Wharton’s belligerents.” Int. Law Dig. 396. §

In an delivered in Mr. opinion declares Legaré “the the act of 1818 (same act of object towas 1817) prevent of vessels of war in our equipping for a ports foreign all. actually power hostilities with a engaged nation with United States are at peace, knowing purpose for which are to be employed.” Gen. Op. Att’y

But reliance is as we placed, understand, upon procla- mations of President during present disturbances Cuba as insurrection making sufficiently notorious FRIENDS.

THE THREE Appellees. Phillips’ Argument attention the Government received the have extensive the insur- ‘two past, although years of this country nearly not received belligerency.” recognition gents countenance to the not lend do present These proclamations do not Government, for they recognize public position or new much less a Cuba, power war existing its sovereignty. asserting can disturbances,” factions, from which may proceed Civil or to consti- war, be deemed public equivalent hardly in view of the in them a tute those people,” participating judicial expression construction placed of this declarations country. political results a con- correct, there If appellant argument of for the to neutrality, dition conception very opposed civil disturb- that those be to' would causing courts obliged say “a for punishment constitute purpose ance people” to them their be act, deny would obliged under yet laws, because under politi- as such the neutrality standing their cal have not Government departments recognized existence. political belligerency would obtain with- all the advantages neutrality

Spain out of its would be the enforce- incurring obligations; a in name as it ment of simulated a neutrality neutrality, only, would be her favor. entirely

It would enable those Spain proceed against opposing as in civil commotion while her Cuba engaged only, calling nation to this assist her a by enforcing neutrality provi- a war sion to.public by applying waged belligerent. court can

The treat Presi- expressions hardly a dent’s as declaration the existence of a messages political a district or at war with and how colony, Spain, people can the the court to constitute a declared by insurgents some without such declaration? people” If the can be resorted courts as evi- by proclamations for one dence status possessed insurgents, purpose, status for must be available as establishing they equally all It would be fair to hold purposes neutrality. documents contain a sufficient declaration of the exist- these clxvi —3

vol. TERM, 1896. Phillips’ Argument Appellees. ” ence those who purpose punishing service, here in their not sufficient act to constitute entitled to under our laws. rights neutrality people” The will not close its them court to suit eyes open again of the Government for the time pleasure being. much Government reliance

The. places upon the'opinion Hoar General construction of- the neu- Attorney clause trality question. is thus stated Mr. Wharton

This : opinion act of 1818 “The is not restricted in its neutrality operation of war two nations or to cases where both between parties — have been a contest that is, as belligerents a sufficiently existence to enable organized political having on war. It them to would extend to the out and carry fitting vessels for a revolted whose arming colony belligerency been but it had not should not be recognized, applied vessels for out, etc., state for use fitting parent whose a revolted had not in manner independence our Whart. Int. Law recognized, government.” Dig. .§

The before the was different question Attorney General the one now from to the court. presented submitted was whether could be point proceedings the act taken. under vessels fitted out against Spanish on the country, to be ground they procured and armed with fitted out intent should be em- state, in the service with intent ployed Spain, foreign commit to cruise or hostilities citizens or against subjects, of a district or “colony, whom the property people” were at United States district or peace, namely, “colony, ” to be the It Cuba. was held people claiming Republic that in the absence such a political recognition .of courts must state the conform to the action of the Gov- ernment.

It was held further that could not be said to commit Spain hostilities armed vessels for against any party by procuring own its within purpose enforcing recognized authority its own dominions. THREE

THE FRIENDS. Phillips’ Appellees. Argument for an that the hostilities were not admission Here against “ a people.?’ General was The attention called to Attorney libels had been filed to fact that condemnation procure that fitted out and of vessels on ground being be intent to the service of armed with employed colony, viz., the district “colony, people,” district people it and was as the Government that those Cuba,” argued had asserted that libels Cuba was district peo- ” the law hostilities ple Spain, capable committing against or fitted out armament by equally procured applied for the Cuba. hostilities Spain purpose against General denied. This Attorney proposition do not to enter into We feel called upon question soundness the opinion. as a there is no Cuba In the case allegation present ” has arisen district or Spain. against

“colony, involved the asser- General The case before the Attorney be tion Republic claiming pretended government, to come within the be said well Cuba, therefore might act as a district “colony, people.” of inconvenience is made.

The argument It condition affairs is said that if under pro- the present ca,nnot under section had vessels ceedings re- law. This there is no argument, penalty provided under the below, origi- marked court applicable nal the act of reenacted act of 179é as it is now,'under 5283, Revised Statutes. section seen, as we held,

Under the first act was sections did not embrace or state” words “foreign prince States. án the United empire cases, to additional resorted In order to cover such Congress legislation. ab

It was not the courts argument Supposed inconvenienti could so stretch cover such cases. the act as to added words cover 1817,'which

The result the act of or were endeavor- sections of an which had separated, empire country. from mother ing separate, TERM, Phillips’ Appellees. Argument

There are law to ample provisions municipal punish those who on foot set of commit- enterprises purpose with which hostilities we are at ting against power peace. Section the act of 1818 6 of Stat. reenacted in sec- (3 448), tion 5286, Revised Statutes, prohibits military enterprises be carried on from thence or dominions territory against or or of district any state, or prince foreign any with whom the United States are at people peace.” This as we have section, seen, for offences provides fully state, enlistments. against peace foreign including It as well in times of times war. applies peace There is no that the or requirement expedition enterprise should be in the service or any government people.” It is it should be directed necessary only or dominions of a territory people.”

This use of the words shows “any people” conclusively that in the sense it meant a or Congress power exercising and is therefore dominion, asserting great significance the argument.

Under this clause no forfeiture is provided.

For offences committed at sea any amounting piracy under our those laws, laws provide ample penalties.

But if at time should think it any for this Spain necessary to enforce its law country out of regarding fitting bellig- erent cruisers, the inis her own has remedy hands; she a state of war. recognize

This has been determined always our Government. Neither nor States admits there exists Spain state of and in its belligerency, absence there cannot exist any obligations neutrality.

In preparing Enlistment Act taken Foreign from our act, Parliament added to the of our stat- language “ or ute, part or of province exer- any person cising to exercise assuming any powers or over any state, foreign colony, province parts province c. people.” III, 69, 7. George This additional in view inserted language undoubtedly of the pronounced object language amendatory FRIENDS. THREE

THE Appellees. Phillips’ Argument for Mr. to an or sections 1818, as only empire 1817,

acts of applying the construction of the view, also, in of an empire, in the of the decisions and our light Eng by word “people” the mean Lushington, v. defining of Nesbitt supra, lish case the same expression. ing to in similar case of The some Itata,

In the respects States of' the United District Court controversy, present as said follows: California, for the district opinion, 20, 1818, the of the act of “Prior April passage in the case Gelstonv. of the States, Court United Supreme Mr. held 245, Story, 3 Wheat. Hoyt, through speaking Justice out 3 of the act of 1794:, fitting section prohibiting ‘ state,’ etc., the service any foreign prince ship, etc., of prince any foreign cruise against subjects, did not at States were state which the United peace, had been unless it recognized new apply government of the country States or United by by set that a up which such new plea country belonged, cruise out a act, ship a forfeiture under that fitting bad. such new must aver such state, recognition, 1818, 20, act of April subsequent passing Congress, inwas, to of the act of 1794 referred which the provision the con to have known must be reenacted, substance, presumed Court theretofore Supreme struction that had been put ’ ‘ and with 1794, in the act the words state upon prince inserted act of 1818 knowledge passing This was district or people.’ clause the words ‘colony, same 439, 215, note sec. Wheaton, to Dana’s done, according of the suggestion 1 Whart. Int. Dig. p. then in American provinces the South minister Spanish not be in might revolt and not recognized independent ‘ one those But every cluded in the word state.’ existence, had acknowledged instances the United States rights war and, belligerent state of as consequence, Affirmed Appeal, of the 49 Fed. 646. Rep. provinces.” 56 Fed. Rep. n obtain a No the Government was made attempt review of either these decisions. TERM, 1896. Phillips’ Argument Appellees. that the matter was Harrison

President was of opinion In his to call to the attention legislature. one proper said: he December message, States for the trial in the District Court United “A has resulted a deci recently Southern District California that, inasmuch as the other party sion things, holding, among the acts not been had belligerent, offending of our not be a violation neutrality done in its interest could the1 States has From this laws. appealed, judgment of the vessel is a matter of not that the condemnation impor know what the of our law but that we tance, may presenfstate if construction of the statute is there is correct, is, for, for revision and amendment.” obvious necessity have been several cases decided in the There District Courts of vessels where the as condemnation involving question of the statute was not raised or discussed application Brown, court. United States v. M. Mary Hogan; Fed. 529; 18 United States v. Justice, Boxes, etc., Rep. 50; Mexico, The 28 Fed. City 20 Fed. 148. Rep. Rep. of who decided the The same first case also decided that judge Carondelet, 37 Fed. 799. of The Rep. was much discussed,

There question although on a different libel was dismissed leaves. ground, judge to his views. The no doubt as was whether a vessel question of the faction the service under entering Hippolyte, Hayti, “ not been could be which had said to enter the recognized, state, of a or of service district foreign prince our had unless Government people, recognized Hippolyte’s as at least does faction constituting belligerent, to have done.” not appear remarked that the

The statute was a criminal judge highly that it not to one; construction penal enlarged by fair of its terms. import beyond In States v. Hart, same said: judge “ 5283 deals with Section armed to com- cruisers, designed mit hostilities favor of one another foreign power against whom we are at Fed. foreign power Rep. peace.” THREE THE FRIENDS. Phillips’ Argument Appellees., In The Conserva, the case of 38 Fed. Rep. Judge -

Benedict held that of section Revised language toas the commission of Statutes, hostilities the sub- against citizens or did jects, property foreign prince people, not include factions who not were engaged insurrection the United States as recognized by belligerents.

The was whether the section as neither question applied, nor who Hippolyte Légitime, struggling supremacy had been Hayti, our Government as recognized by bellig- erent powers. “ In the absence fact, out of proof fitting vessel with intent to enter the service of one commit hos- tilities the other within brought scope the statute.” “ It is said that the the act tends show that history it was intended to cover every revolutionary body, recognized which made bona claims to unrecognized, rights fide sovereignty.” But where is it shown in this record that there exists ” ? revolutionary body rights sovereignty claiming A deal about a has said good insur- recognition from a gency” recognition distinguished belligerency. I think this is the first time court justice a distinction has been made. expression, recognition is not found in the works insurgency,” accepted writers on international nor it a of our law, part jurispru- dence. It has a been used Dr. Wharton in paper he contributed ato law The he only magazine. meaning attaches to the is that the Government when it expression, sees that certain are refuse to treat persons may insurgents, them as is now enforce The court asked to a pirates. provi- sion a cruisers, out regarding strictly fitting belligerent where there is no no neutrality provision, neutrality, recog- nized war. Our Government is further than has Spain going ever admitted and further than is to she Our willing go. Government here is a that insists that there there is a war, hostile and that the Cuba as Cuba, sovereignty “ a are in Government, revolt people” against Spain. OCTOBER, TERM, 1896. Appellees. Argument for

Mr. Cockrell’s favor, : will enforce to* We effect, neutrality your says Spain now to which we assert but not favor of the other party (cid:127) be our a This admits people.” obligations argument when conditions, are the same under the present Spain just as if there war, does not admit there a (government that for the Gov- This is great responsibility belligerency. court this take, ernment a great responsibility to declare. IF. ell for

Mr. A. Coder appellees. etc., a when only The act of vessel arming, punishable is accom- etc., act of done therein' that arming, provided, therein intent, to the panied by imputed person persons it Is therein against. specified, thing provided doing forfeited, be under idle to the vessel not say may dissociated the acts or therein statute, doings, specified; therein therein the intent speci- from imputed persons therein ? If the acts and fied doings specified before the intent therein must be accompanied specified it follows vessel can- thereunder, can be persons punished than be condemned forfeiture otherwise upon allega- arid those acts and tions proof showing doings, allegations denounced, with which intent, therein showing proof were committed. other a vessel be condemned construction, Under any may re- forfeiture, short of-those upon allegations proof, Whereas, quired punish offending persons. plain, statute, of the is “And unambiguous imperative, language vessel,” is, a vessel of which etc.; every respect acts and have been in re- committed; these vessel, doings and, this intent which, existed; spect arming equally intent alike, which, vessel respect therein denounced has been ascertained offending persons thereof. their conviction to forfeiture is not,

Condemnation law-making power, vessel, other than such vessel. Forfeiture predicated is-denounced vessel so fitted out and with the armed, THE THREE FRIENDS. él Appellees. Argument Mr. Cockrell’s so offending fitting intent therein specified, by persons intent, of which and with such her and acts out; doings forfeiture and convicted; have persons offending 7’ no than such vessel. other denounced against make a case libel, forfeiture, In under this to seeking, and the ascertained without reference to .of independently that the the Government insists of the guilt offending persons, the ves- as such means vessel, vessel identified statute denounced, sel out and armed with the intent so fitted not offend- out and a vessel whose respect fitting arming because, been convicted; have through ing speaking persons forced said, learned District Attorney, logically under this condemnation, to to the vessel be liable may say, and the statute, offending acquitted. persons no based, this libel is Under wrong statute, upon instrument, is in which the made the vessel is guilty doing intent forfeiture. The consummate the required guilty of the statute the mandate attached by offending person of this is denounced because forfeiture vessel, 50, c. of June act, act intent. The guilty original § claimants. the contention of lends 179é, strong support lan- In the structure of the section as originally passed, forfeiture, the vessel to upon following guage condemning separated ascertained person, offending guilt a semi-colon. from the intervention of such ascertainment by it was 3 Wheat. In the of Gelston v. argued, case Hoyt, D. B. and Mr. March, 1817, Mr. Hoffman this court, rule of error, that By every just for defendant Ogden, the offender indictment construction against proceeding by for and the suit rem must his conviction precede is different of the act vessel. feiture The phraseology offi statutes, the revenue from all other statutes. .those By rem, thing cers to seize against power proceed criminal seized forfeited, proceedings independent the forfeiture act individuals. By offending the conviction per is made thing depend that only son, a,s seize, and the President has alone power violation intended measure, precautionary prevent TERM, 1896. Appellees. Argument for Mr. Cockrell’s over for and was laws.” The case stood reargument, 27th, and decided 23d, February February reargued enacted there- 20th, act in its form was April The present these after, gentlemen although argument pre- and the discussed, vailed' on other hereinafter propositions this contention, court was not special pass upon required of the when attention Congress it could not have escaped If, to revision. 1818, this statute was subjected April, to authorize a seizure revision, this had Congress purposed criminal pro- and forfeiture of the independent thing, its to have individuals, it was duty ceedings against offending it in of the statute harmony recast the put phraseology to seize and revenue officers with other statutes empowering forfeiture. in rem seized for proceed thing that the nec- to, libel fails to The only allege excepted has.been criminal intent of any- essary offending persons it who the ascertained; wise does not even show offending are. persons of the shows that the act statute clearly language intent therein be with must specific

arming accompanied It denounced, to consummate the offence. follows the spe- cific must be laid in the identical and none intent persons, out the so vessel. other, fitting The word as used this defined in .statute, people,” States v. 6 Pet. to be 445, Quincy, merely descriptive in whose service the of the vessel was intended power it is one of the the- denomination's employed; applied by. to a act of Congress foreign power. follows that the “dis- word, the word,

It “colony,” is, each whose ser- trict,” also, descriptive power is, the vessel to be each one of the also, vice employed; the act of to a denominations applied by foreign Congress words, It is clear that the added dis- equally power. colony, do a a a trict or not mean part colony, people,” part a, or a mean district, part They people many people. that is district people, body politic, constituting charged political power, foreign power. it had into That been section attempted import

THE THREE FRIENDS. Appellees. Argument Mr. Cockrell’s the effect to sec. Act, Enlistment 5& given Foreign and the III, cases, thereof, numerous discussions George thereunder, not, could it arising presumed, escaped Court; attention the Itata ease had Supreme before it on a writ nor application certiorari; court unaware the recommendations President Harrison based on.the decision of the Itata nor was Congress case; it unaware that had failed to to those Congress respond recommendations, when in case, May, Wiborg 163 U. S. the sections the title under analyzed grouped Laws. Neutrality

It is that court in this case in apparent Wiborg brought and contrast the eleven sections from 5281 to opposition for the and. each its purpose defining ascribing appro- functions enacted, and priate statutory system thereby declared that with “section 5283 deals out and fitting arming vessels this favor of one country foreign power against another at with which we are foreign peace.” power after court,

The this the sections commented analysis to set terms on, forth section under proceeds section, And was indicted. analysis this Wiborg from as the court makes its terms contrasted apparent, .it section also at section 5283, theretofore quoted length, its was 5286, while general undoubtedly designed purpose two nations, to secure in wars between other neutrality two as between parties recognized contending belligerents, on its is not the existence of necessarily dependent operation such state belligerency.”

That and not this to section sec- language applies tion from but also be- context, obvious not 5283, is only under cause section 5286 was the section consideration. only Its and under of the facts consideration meaning application were to be ascertained reference to the system statutory that, and the this sec- court whole; demonstrated, though LXVII, tion was under headed neutrality, Title placed for- it did tend to secure wars between neutrality though its belligerencies, operation eign powers recognized state or status necessarily dependent u TERM, Argument Attorney United States. General’s

Mr. the court enforces And refer- reasoning by belligerency. does the as it recommendations following ence to its language of President "Washington. States.

Mr. General Attorney then the usual of the hour time for In view past [it not make an extended A few I will argument. adjournment], serve, illustrations made remarks Phillips will as I out difference between under- my position, bring him. stand it, my put by position this, I call Honor’s attention to however, Before your doing the exact below: that if form of entry judgment the libel be not amended within ten same stand days dismissed. that' counsel on other side contend .the United had to wait

States ten before whether Attorney days deciding he or not. We wanted amend that he could immedi- say court state to the that he did amend, not wish ately he did so state, that the libel appealing thereby was dismissed.

It is also contended that the should libel have been dis- it was missed because before brought successful prosecu- tion who had fitted out armed persons the vessel. It seems to be of the statute plain upon very reading two to follow are from a act; certain penalties first, that every within who the limits person shall, of the United States, fit out and or arm, fit out and or attempt arm, to be fitted procure out and armed, or shall be concerned in the furnish- knowingly out or ing, vessel, such Avith fitting arming intent any ship that such or vessel shall be in ship service employed or state or of any foreign prince district or people, to cruise or commit shall, hostilities, conviction, be ad- upon óf a misdemeanor, and shall fined judged guilty be and high and, imprisoned: secondly, vessel shall be every ship — forfeited not conviction upon offending person, to be done upon doing the acts. procuring The counsel Avhofirst addressed the court on side, the other

THE THREE FRIENDS. Attorney Argument General’s for United States. in old insurance case of Nesbitt v. speaking Lushington, R. the case of T. a which supposed ship was insured a a under policy containing provision insurance against restraints and detainments all kings, princes people.” A moment’s attention to this case will illustrate the exact here under discussion. point

I am not to admit, in view of the willing amendment made to the act of words adding state,” “prince which covered form every the words organized government, district or and in view the “colony, historical facts people,” that amendment, that the attending our statutes language rules governed by construction to such applicable of insurance. policies But, for the I of what have to assuming that say, purpose ” of what a are would be the same under question people

our statute- as would be under a of insurance such policy was in case, involved here are the facts involved in It Nesbitt v. evidence a Lushington. was appeared ship weather, Harbor, into stress Ireland. forced, Elly There to be of corn there at scarcity, great happening came board the tumultu- time, ship and took the of her from the manner, ous government cap- crew, anchor, tain and her which she drove weighed stranded; on a where she rocks, reef of would they until had leave her sell they compelled captain tons, all ten at a certain which rate, the corn about except fourths of the invoice about three price. ? It no does that Now, pict- what presents picture present even an ure of an set attempt up government, in so save far to overthrow attempt existing government, did was therefore tem- as the act which lawless, had of the laws of the defiance porary there. jurisdiction coast the same on the

But landed ship point suppose leader Gomez or other Cuban where General Cuba, her and the vessel been seized and control, cargo had. forces. Would insurgent confiscated support Term the same case as the case the 4th that present TERM, 1896. Attorney Argument General’s for the United States. (cid:127) is the difference? The No. What Irish case had Reports* The wanted people no significance. something political one, a which would ter- be temporary The eat. uprising What is other? when appeased. minated hunger States, United which has The President language them describes Honors, thus, read his your already “ Whatever of 1895: may annual sympathy message with a who seem to be individuals, our people countrymen, freedom.” That autonomy greater larger struggling are There lies the dis- in Cuba doing. is what this people this, that “ there case lies between appli- tinction a sooiis.” The old statute noseitur rule declared of the cation of causes to be who vessel one equips, equipped, or subjects hostilities against property commit “prince whom, which the States at or are or state” with peace, I admit when it adds should be Congress, punished. — it same line that when words, is other proceeding or to other district refers political people,” says it. — to not not mobs. It is associations of hungry associations at over an island; individuals, large wandering but an which, without mob, purpose; organization political unsuccessfully, rightfully wrongfully, successfully of the world, whole to set knowledge attempting, a government. up citizens or. words,

The “subjects, property people,”, the hostilities. indicate Any political objects organiza- over has, wholly, tion partly authority part or however narrow comes land, .however temporary, of this because are law, within the its description objects or- are in less as to degree They permanency political. dominion, extent of or as as to to permanent ganization, ” the same as a state.” control, prince vessel was fitted out to be em libel charges then armed resist in the service of engaged ployed in the Island ance King Spain hostilities Cuba, to cruise commit subjects, in that This distin citizens and island. King property from the corn seizure the coast Ireland. this case guishes THE THREE FRIENDS. Attorney Argument for General’s

Mr. United States. men resist the When regular authority country it for one do of two for the dwell, they they purposes: purpose or lawlessness, or order to set another robbery, rapine up do it for the If former are they purpose, they government. If robbers on the land sea. do it for piraos they l' are istrict,” the latter if of them they you purpose, speak “ with reference a if territory they occupy; colony,” of them with reference to their ; a you speak origin peo or if few, whether of them with refer ple,” many you speak to mere ence their character.

I do not claim that there is no middle a between ground and a band of robbers or organization I political pirates. say that is the distinction land and sea. No one has right to force use or vessels of nation, against persons, property without some sort of to do so. It be political authority may old, established It be authority. may merely recognized It be the of the sacred authority. belligerent may authority of revolution which some have undertaken to exercise, right with it in without far its success its getting enough along of contact with or its other to nations, permanency, points secure formal The world and the courts recognition. recognizes the men the one case are recognize, blindly striking out their for what believe them right governing the}'- ; selves in the it is that the other case lawlessness is without warrant.

The that to be a one must be an definition pirate enemy of all is a one. The from it mankind conclusion very strange would if start out to be be that men want to con- pirates and fine themselves British never entirely robbing ships, they A can be "wouldnot want punished pirate, any- pirates. better than that. thing The is whether there some kind of a body question ” their whether describe them as a district from

people, you ; of abode or as a reference to where place colony,” having come or as “a whether they from; people”; they or been with ties got long together together hurriedly, blood them. If are united between they common and. down one purpose pull put up another, TERM, 1896. é8 Attorney Argument the United States. General’s “ are a It clear that the intention of seems to be they people.” the statute was to these words to Congress prevent adding our citizens from sort of part political enterprise taking its citizens property. friendly power, subjects, libel was fitted out with intent

This that this vessel charges wit: to enter the the Cuban service insurgents people, or revolutionists. Who are % they who are. President tells proclamation you who are are a down there body struggling They with or reasons for without themselves, complaint just govern however, is fact, Spain. We know it not as matter of history, only general plain. The reasons which Executive through Department. them formal determine whether this Government will give or been discussed associate. my by Eight recognition reasons the Executive has that the existing considered wrong, inde- do their not formal justify recognition belligerency pendence. the existence of hostilities

But the actual state fact, two hundred has caused the to send King Spain Cuba, island of the destruction thousand troops called of American citizens which is almost daily property a condition Government, the attention of the constitutes condition, confronted with this and, which confronts us, troubles, centred is met these now Government by largely which, the District Florida formerly belonged having contest more inclined to one feels side of naturally Spain, than other. could a which we

We have for the first found, time, ship twitted fitted We are out for warlike prove purposes. time this with the fact that this is first that proceeding has a has taken. first set But this time a ship gun deck from that so it could be used deck, on her that arranged a for the a vessel of friendly power. purpose firing upon into We come for the enforcement court ask are We statute. are met claim that these insurgents by formally recog- a because have not been people,” they are that they nized as We belligerents say insurgents. THREE FRIENDS. THE Opinion of the Court. which makes them people,”

political organization, which alone are enterprise, gives political engaged vessel, of the owners of this the action pre- character to from vents them being pirates. filed brief as leave Carlisle, court, Calderon ice.

Amicus Cur delivered after case, Mr. Chief stating Fuller, Justice of the court. the opinion was not inasmuch final,

It is decree but, objected dismissed if not amended the libel was ordered to stand within that within ten the prosecution appeal, days, to amend and the time, was election waive right decree dismissal took effect immediately. the decree cases, enumerated,

In others admiralty among final in that court of the Circuit Court of is made Appeals Act of March 3,1891, of section the terms six Judiciary case, certiorari but this court may require certified for its review and determination otherwise, if it had in the case as with the same authority power Court,” been carried or writ of error to by appeal Supreme if it had been District is, as from brought directly 828, 517, the Circuit Court. 26 Stat. c. § in the of be issued such writ certiorari may Accordingly action that to the Circuit by cases Court of pending Appeals, and, to be exer- court, a not ordinarily is although power Railway, v. Jacksonville cised, American Construction Co. the circumstances that 372, 385, U. S. we of were opinion the and instance, in this the allowance of the writ justified case is before us. properly contention that the

We with the District Judge agree the conviction forfeiture section 5283 under depends untenable. is a denounced for the acts person persons doing the condemnation The a rem for the suit is civil in suit two- The pro- vessel not a criminal and is only, prosecution. in different are pursued ceedings wholly independent VOL. CLXVI —4 TERM, 1896.

Opinion of the Court. in and the each courts, result be Indeed, different. might if forfeiture be decreed the showed the might proof prohibited were committed as to acts the the identity though lacking whom committed. were The Pal- particular person by 12 Wheat. The Ambrose 25 Fed. 1,14; ; myra, Light, Rep. The Meteor, 17 Fed. Cas. 178.

The case of a libel information Palmyra the to forfeit her under cer- vessel piratical aggression, tain acts which made no the provision Congress per- the it sonal but was held even offenders, that, punishment if been made, had conviction would not have provision the enforcement forfeiture. And Mr. necessary Justice the said : It is known, well Story, delivering opinion, law, in that at common cases of felonies, many party his chattels forfeited to the Crown. forfeiture The goods <1id attach not, in it awas strictly speaking, rem; part, at least of conviction. It consequence, judgment statement, from this that no to the right plain goods, of the felon be chattels could Crown by acquired commission of but the offence; mere attached right only the conviction of offender. The was, result necessary case where the Crown to recover such every sought it was chattels, establish its goods indispensable right the record In conviction. by producing judgment common law, offender’s contemplation right divested until was not conviction. But this doctrine forfeitures, never was seizures and created stat- applied' ute, rem, revenue side of the cognizable Exchequer. here considered offender, as the thing primarily rather the offence is attached and this primarily thing; n whether offence malum or malum se. prohibitum The same seizures rem, on principle applies proceedings cases where the forfeiture for Admiralty. .Many exist, ‘ done acts attaches and there is no solely rem, accompany- cases exist where there is personam. ing penalty Many both a forfeiture in rem But in neither personal penalty. of cases has ever been class decided the prosecutions each other. But the has been dependent upon practice FRIENDS. THREE THE Opinion of the Court. be, law to that understands the court

and so this proceed of, unaffected stands wholly in rem independent ing , The see Malek criminal personam." And proceeding Adhel Charles, v. The Little 210 United States Brock. 347. ; 2 How. “ furnished,- fitted out libel that vessel was The alleged that she should be with intent armed, employed certain then wit, service certain people, engaged Government of the to the in armed Spain, resistance King to cruise and commit hostilities in the island Cuba, against citizens and property King subjects, Spain, with whom the United States are and the island Cuba, that at at date peace.” held that this The learned District was insufficient Judge “ 5283, because was not under section said alleged out with intent that she be had fitted vessel employed or of state, in the service a foreign prince as such by political district people recognized power States.” United v. 163 U. S. States, In which was Wiborg we -referred sec indictment under section the eleven which constitute 5291,inclusive, from 5281 Title LXYII tions undoubt and said: The statute was Statutes, of the Revised between secure wars neutrality edly designed general as or between nations, two other parties contending but is not its necessarily dependent belligerents, operation considera state of the existence belligerency,” 5283 confirms us case under section tion arising present in the view thus expressed. we referred sections, a resume of It is true in giving out and vessels fitting arming as dealing section (cid:127) of one in favor power in this foreign country at are -with which we peace,”

another power foreign the entire scope matter description, general to be indicated. was not the section required by way and usually title headed called Neutrality,” as the term Act,” “Foreign the “Neutrality of convenience statute, British Act” is analogous Enlistment applied does not restriction. but this operate TERM, 1896. 52 Opinion of the Court- in consists Neutrality, abstinence strictly speaking, .from in a or civil in public, war, and any participation private of conduct toward both but the mainte- impartiality parties, nance unbroken of relations between two peaceful powers when domestic of one them of is disturbed is not peace which, in the sense the word is used when neutrality has disturbance as to have demanded head acquired of' as mere matter' of munici- And, recognition belligerency. no nation can of administration, unauthorized acts pal permit war within its in infraction of its territory while sovereignty, faith towards nations their good friendly requires prevention. Hence, Mr. Hoar 13 out, General Attorney pointed 177; 178, of the act was Opinions, though principal object “to secure the States, performance duty nations, under law of as a neutral nation respect act- nevertheless act foreign powers,” punish the United States by fines, certain against imprison- offences ment and the act defines the forfeitures, itself precise nature those offences.”

These sections were from the act of forward brought, 20, 3 1818, Stat. c. “'An in- 447, 88, entitled act addi- April ‘ tion to the Act for certain crimes punishment States,’ the United mentioned,” the acts therein repeal which was derived from the act of June 5, 381, 1 Stat. 1794, c. entitled “An 50, act addition to the ‘Act for the punish- ” ment of certain crimes the United and the against, States/ March 3 3, 1817, act of Stat. c. 370, “An 58, entitled act more neutral preserve the relations effectually United States.”

The act of March 3, 1819, Stat. c. Rev. piracy 510, 77, 4293, Stat. 4294, 4295, 4296, 5368, the acts supplemented §§ 1818. act 1794, which has been generally recognized instance first iii of. the obliga- municipal legislation support tions of advance in the neutrality, remarkable develop- ment of International Law, was recommended by Congress 3, President his annual address on December Washington in. drawn 1793; was the Senate by Hamilton; -and passed ' THREE FRIENDS.

THE Opinion of the Court. - 3d Adams. Ann. of Vice 67. Cong. vote

casting President out of the of the then French Its enactment proceedings grew forth which called President minister, Washington’s proclama of' And tion though neutrality spring Justice law of had been declared Chief his nations Jay, Richmond, at 1793 (Whar May charge grand jury Mr. Jus Wilson, ton’s State Mr. Justice Trials, 49, 56), tice Iredell and trial Ilehfield Peters, July Judge of that to be enforced year (Id. 84), capable being of well as the courts the United States as criminally, civilly, deemed to Without further advisable legislation, yet and, the act in view over that of position, pass controversy code moreover, order to pre provide comprehensive incon vention of acts within our individuals jurisdiction as as hostile to sistent with our-own well friendly authority, powers. follows:

Section 5283 of the “ Statutes Revised limits of the United within the States, who, Every person arm, fit and or fits out and to out arms, or attempts procures in the to be concerned armed, fitted out and or knowingly with intent of vessel out or any arming, furnishing, fitting the of service for- any shall be such vessel employed district or to or or of state, people, any eign prince or citizens subjects, cruise or commit hostilities against or of dis- state, or any colony, property prince any foreign are at or United States peace, trict or with whom the people, within the or territory who or a commission issues delivers States, to vessel, the intent any of the United jurisdiction aof be deemed guilty high that she shall be so may employed, ten than thousand not more be fined misdemeanor, and shall And than three years. every and not more dollars, imprisoned with furniture, together such and vessel, tackle, her apparel stores, may all ammunition materials, arms, shall thereof, for the procured equipment building informer, be use forfeited; one half States.” other half use the United 5, 1794, act of June three to section By referring of the act of section three 1817, and section one of the act OCTOBER, TERM, 1896. 54:

Opinion of the Court. which are 1818, it will be seen given margin,1 “ ” words or of district or were inserted any colony, law the act of carried forward original of 1818, act into so section

The immediate occasion of the of the act of March passage 3, 1817, to have been a under date of communication, appears December from the minister to Mr. Mon- 20,1816, Portuguese then roe, him of the out State, Secretary informing fitting at Baltimore to act case it privateers against Portugal, should turn out that that Government was at war “ Government of Buenos Ayres,” self-styled soliciting of such of law as will Congress provisions proposition pre- vent such for the future.” On December 26, attempts President Madison sent a special message Congress, which he referred to the inefficacy laws existing pre- hostilities, prince any colony, against the limits tent that such arm, person be which of the not parel case demeanor, mission or vessel to the intent with whom United States in the service of and arm or or shall the which Act of March forfeited, any' ports, Act of June exceed be more than five or and furniture furnishing, may offence, or so ship procure the within knowingly tlie of the offending subjects, state, harbors, and have been attempt or to aid or three district or subjects, or conviction one half to the use ship and the other half to the use of the United States.” vessel with shall be fined and to be fitted 3, or of United any foreign years, fitting 1817, territory or vessel shall be together bays, citizens 1794: shall to fit out and arm or be concerned in the procured citizens or thousand dollars and the term of any that she shall c. and States, out or rivers or other upon 58, intent that such cooperate That if Sec. 3. colony, out and with all every be prince ^[3] are at with whom conviction jurisdiction for the property Stat. arming, had, fit out and may of imprisoned property, such district or armed, any person materials, arms, employed peace, so as building state of waters employed : of another ship procure furnishing, fitting be any “ the fine to be the United any or shall ship That if arm, of any person adjudged at the or vessel with her the United shall issue or deliver a com in the service of warlike people such and who shall cruise or commit hostilities any or to be fitted out and or vessel shall be knowingly any person equipment discretion of the court ship prince foreign ammunition and stores attempt aforesaid, every to cruise guilty States measure imposed imprisonment shall within States or give or vessel, prince out to fit out and States, are at be concerned thereof shall shall, state, information any or commit tackle, shall in no or whatever, high employed with or state foreign arming armed, within peace, fit or of shall- mis ship out ap in-

THE THREE FRIENDS.

Opinion of the Court. violations the of the States vent United as a obligations nation at towards and other unlawful peace belligerent parties acts the seas armed vessels within the high equipped with a and, waters the view to United States.” maintain character, laws, more due to the effectually respect and to the neutral and States,” relations of the United pacific recommended further This legislative provisions. message transmitted to the minister December and he was informed of the act in promptly officially passage month March. succeeding Arbitration, Geneva Case In Mr. States, United Dana’s elaborate note to 439§ of his edition of said that the words Wheaton, colony, district or on the inserted people” suggestion minister that the South American revolt Spanish provinces not and included in be independent might person conviction, every adjudged offending shall, sucli so guilty be misdemeanor, high imprisoned aof and shall be fined and at the discretion had, of the court in so as fine to which the conviction shall be be im- dollars, posed shall in no case be more than ten thousand and term of imprisonment ship vessel, every years; such or shall not ten and exceed arms, tackle, furniture, materials, apparel together her with and with all stores, procured may building ammunition and been for the and have which thereof, forfeited, any person equipment one use of shall be half information, give and other half to use who shall United States.” person shall, any April if 447: 3. That Act Stat. S.KC. States, arm, attempt out or fit and fit out within limits of the United arm, armed, knowingly procure shall or out and or be con-' and fitted be any ship arming, fitting or vessel furnishing, out or with cerned employed any ship in the service of for- shall intent such or vessel be people, state, prince any colony, or to cruise or com- eign or district or any foreign property subjects, or citizens mit hostilities people,-with prince state, or whom or district or within terri- peace, a commission at States are or shall issue deliver States, vessel, ship to the- tory jurisdiction of the United aforesaid, person offending every so may employed as that she intent misdemeanor, high be fined not more and shall guilty shall be deemed years; dollars, imprisoned than three more not. ten than thousand furniture, tackle, apparel together vessel, every ship with her materials, stores, may arms, all ammunition thereof, forfeited; procured building equipment shall be one for the informer, use of other half and the half to use of States.” TEEM, 1896. 56 Opinion of the Court. “ the circumstances act was the word Under state.” relations of the United entitled as “to the neutral preserve described it as title of the act of “in States,” while the 30, 112, 1 Stat. c. Act addition” to the Crimes April 9, and the act of 1818 was entitled same But way. “ there that the words in all this to indicate colony, nothing ” district had reference to communities whose solely had been of the times, and the belligerency history recognized, review of which has been furnished us interesting by of counsel, does not sustain the view industry insurgent districts or in bodies, unrecognized belligerents, tended to be embraced. theOn the reasonable con contrary, ” “ clusion is that the insertion of the words district or people should be attributed to the bodies, intention to include such as for instance, so-called Oriental of Artigas, Republic and the Governments of Pétion and atti whose Christophe, tude had been on the courts of New York more passed than a before year Gelston v. Johns. Hoyt, which was then in this court on writ of error. There pending was no reason should why they included, not have been it is to the extended enumeration as revolutionary covering bodies claim to laying whether rights sovereignty, recog nized or that Chief Justice Marshall unrecognized, manifestly referred in in The Gran saying, Wheat. Para, 471, 489, the act of 1817 laws to the actual situa adapts previous tion of the world.” At all events, no limi imposed Congress tation on the words district or people,” requiring political recognition.

Of course a has political whose community independence been is a “state” if a recognized act; under the and, body embarked in a inde- movement, whose revolutionary political has not pendence been, whose has been, belligerency recog- nized, also embraced that term, then the words colony, ” district or instead limited to people, being political which has must community belligerent, be held necessarily associ- applicable insurgents body ated in a common together political carrying enterprise hostilities in the effort to achieve parent country,

THE THREE FRIENDS. 57

Opinion of the Court. of has not belligerency indépendence, although recognition been accorded'. of

And international law principles agreeably of the the and the reason of thing, recognition belligerency, all the state, while not rights conferring independent to the Government the concedes recognized rights, imposes it the of an state matters obligations, independent war no the per- being waged, ground relating adequate are not a Government ceived for aid of such acts holding in aid of a state of the statute. sense the contrary; are not to decisions

Contemporaneous though throw no precise question. light upon special at 246, term, v. decided February Gelston 3 Wheat. Hoyt, was an action 1816), below and February, (and January the collector surveyor port trespass against her tackle, New York for American ship Eagle, seizing 1810, order 10, made by etc. The was July seizure apparel, the act of 1794, three of President section Madison under intended for the was 5283. The to section ship corresponding who had divided service of Christophe, Pétion against in a and were bloody island between them engaged of Hayti It had not recognized. but whose contest, belligerency or state” prince held that service “any foreign which had been or state imported prince manner, no Government, and as there was recognition of a belligerency whether question recognition words, did those it within de wrouldbring sovereignty facto not arise. involved the capture The case of The Wheat. Estrella, There was a of Venezuelan April privateer thus came an American vessel, prize recapture New before court at Orleans adjudication. from commission was found to privateer regular violated section but it had Bolivar, issued as 1816, eaily two as section two of the the same act district the words act 1818, omitting Revised Statutes), is now section 5282 people” (and Venezuela Orleans, men at New provided enlisting OCTOBER TERM, 1896. Opinion of the Court. a state within the that act. The decision meaning pro- ceeded on the was to Yenezuela be so ground regarded on the made theory recognition belligerency (cid:127) intent a to that state. belligerent In The Anna and Liebre, Nueva 6 Wheat. 193,.the record “ Galveztown,” court at constituted under the au- prize of the Mexican was offered thority Republic,” proof, this court refused to recognize belligerent right claimed, because our Government had not the existence acknowledged (cid:127) Mexican war with state at Republic Spain Para, in The 7 Wheat. Justice 471, Oran Chief Marshall referred to as a state within the Buenos Ayres the meaning act of 1794. “ ” Even if the word state as admitted employed previously of a less liberal should the the signification, why meaning ” “ district or words be confined to people only parties words Neither of these is used as belligerent? recognized “ state,” word were added to en- equivalent a statute contained already that large scope does not word. The statute district or say foreign colony, nor was the reference is to necessary, that which people, of the dominion of a or state, part foreign prince though to such or state. Nor are the hostility acting prince words a if confined to As counsel for apt belligerent.. argued by Government, an under the act is insurgent colony before same as after recognition shown belligerency, the instance of colonies of Buenos by Ayres Paraguay, of one not of belligerency having recognized but. other, while the statute to both. Nor plainly applicable is district de appropriate designation recognized power since such would not power facto, represent the.territory n held but the covered claim of actually territory sover- by Aud the word when not used as the eignty. people,” equiva- lent of state or nation, must less apply body persons than a nation, state or would satisfied meaning be it as consolidated considering applicable political body. v. In States United Pet. an indictment Quiney, under the third section the act of the court disposed

THE THREE FRIENDS.

Opinion Court. “ The last instruc- thus: other points^ among of the following, That of the defendant was: on the asked part' tion opinion United Provinces cause, the evidence according of the offence was at the time is, de la Plata of Rio the indictment, acknowledged by government alleged ’ ‘ not a within was a state and and thus States, ‘people’ United which the the act of under defend- Congress the meaning ’ in that act word intended ; the being is indicted people ant not under an existing describe communities and that indictment States; the United evidence. on this cannot supported therefore the defendant was concerned indictment charges intent she should be the Bolivar with out fitting ’ ‘ that is to in the service of. say, foreign people; employed of Rio de la Plata. Provinces It the service of Rio de la Provinces Plata that the United evidence, as an nation independent had been acknowledged regularly of the United the Government the Executive Department therefore it 1827. And States, argued year before ’ ‘ that nation is not word properly applicable power. technical, we think is one purely The objection used, here is de- word merely The ‘people,’ well.founded. the vessel was intended whose setvice of the power scriptive the denominations it is of and one applied to be employed; are, The words a of to foreign power. the act Congress by ‘ state, or or of any colony; of prince service any foreign ’ ‘ word of the people or district application people.’ follows under the vide- what certain rendered by sufficiently ‘ deRio la Plata.’ the United Provinces that is to licet, say, ’ ‘ is left too the word which by people This particularizes or incon- no are way repugnant The descriptions general. That well stand other, together. and with each may sistent to what serves explain under the videlicet, only which comes ” ‘ word and obscure people.’ is doubtful in the word obscurity that any was decided was All that was cured to a government applied “people” the videlicet. by TERM,

Opinion of the Court. R. Nesbitt v. T. was action Lushington, policy of insurance in the usual and form, insured among perils and rovers, thieves,” were re “arrests, “pirates, against all straints and detainments of and kings, people, princes what or soever.” The nation, condition vessel with quality into a and of corn was driven was seized cargo port by and who assumed the her forced the mob cap corn low tain sell the at a It ruled that this price. the maxim loss and nosciiur a sociis was by pirates, Lord Mr. Justice Buller. Mr. Justice applied by Kenyon Buller said: means ‘the “‘People’ ‘the supreme power’; whatever it be. power country,’ may This appears clear from another for where the part under policy; acts, writers insure- individuals, wrongful they ‘ describe them the thieves pirates, rogues, ’; names then stated all the individual having whose acts persons, against mention other those they risks, occasioned engage, ‘ acts of of what nation, condi kings, princes or. tion soever.’ Those words must quality apply therefore. ’ ‘nations in their collective capacity.” As remarked in the brief Messrs. Bichard H. Dana, Jr., Jr., and Horace filed Mr. in Mauran v. Gray, Cushing words 6 Wall. Co., Insurance doubtless originally with the view of all inserted enumerating possible forms'of monarchical, aristocratical, democratic.” government, The British Act, Enlistment Geo. c. III, 69, was Foreign act bottomed 6n the seventh section, of which portion below,1 opening given corresponded “1 any person, part if That Kingdom, within or in seas, shall, part Majesty’s beyond His dominions without leave Majesty purpose license of His for that first had and obtained as aforesaid, equip, furnish, arm, attempt equip, fit out or or endeavor furnish, arm, procure equipped, furnished, fit out be fitted out or armed, knowingly aid, equipping, or shall assist or be fur concerned any Ship nishing, fitting arming out or or in Vessel with intent order Ship employed any Foreign shall that such or Vessel service Prince, Potentate, any Colony, part Foreign State or or of or of Province People, any any exercising assuming Province or or of or Person Persons or any powers State, any Colony, of Foreign to exercise in or Government over THREE

THE FRIENDS.

Opinion of the Court. of act. Its terms however, third section that consider- were, But the broader less construction. we think ably left ” district or must be treated as words equally in their here. comprehensive bearing The In the case of L. Salvador, R. 3 P. C. the Salvador been seized under of .of had warrant the the Bahama governor Islands in the Yice Court proceeded against Admiralty preach was, there for of that the section, and hearing cause, of the ordered to be the court satis restored, being that the fied vessel was within the of the engaged, meaning section, insurrection parties against foreign aiding as did exercise -the such not-assume.to government, parties of of over any territory powers portion overruled on This decision was appeal government. Council, and Lord Cairns, the Judicial of the Committee Privy “ It be observed that said: is to delivering opinion, is in the alternative. section ship may part Prince, or Po State, service employed Foreign or tentate, State, or Province part any Foreign Colony, find consoli or that is to if any Province say, you People; State, Potentate, it be the dated whether body Foreign Government, or a dominion, who has absolute or part the whole Province the Province or of the or People, is sufficient. But or the for themselves, People acting there be a case alternative it is may by way suggested where, or the Province, cannot although you say are or a or the Province part People employing People, there or who be some may ship, persons yet may person ship, transport part or People, or store any or Province or Province any Prince, against or Po- intent to State cruise or commit hostilities Prince, Potentate, tentate, against any subjects or State or or citizens powers persons against assuming exercising or to exercise or Country, part any any Colony, Province or Government or Province part any Colony, any Foreign or or Province inhabitants of war; or Country, Majesty not then be at Province Ilis shall with whom dominions, shall, any Majesty’s inor Kingdom, within of His subject Settlement, belonging any Territory, place Colony, Island or Ship Vessel, Majesty,, His issue or deliver Commission aforesaid,” Ship employed etc. intent that such bé or Vessel shall TERM, 1896. Opinion Court. of the exercise, of Government or powers assuming be exercising, the whole of the State, or Colony drawing in Foreign from abroad; hostile and, aid for the material proceedings it is stated to be alternative, sufficient, of therefore, by way ‘ in service of or if find the acting any prepared you ship exercise, or or assuming any exercising, persons person State, in or over any Colony, of Government Foreign powers but that alter- Province or of Province or any people’; part find is fitted if to, not be resorted ship- native need you ‘ in the ser- for the out and armed being employed purpose or or Province State part vice- of People, any Foreign . . . or People.’ “ to decide whether is or is not It -be (it necessary may or were the not state who person persons, that not) you could there, or assum- were or exercising, or that any person persons in in Cuba, exercise, opposition Government ing powers their : authorities. That so Lordships may Spanish will assume that no subject, they opinion upon express within in the case be a there difficulty bringing might but their ; that second alternative of section are Lordships no there is difficulty clearly opinion, bringing of the case under the first alternative because their section, find these established all doubt, Lordships propositions beyond —there an insurrection in the island of there Cuba; had who formed themselves into a insurgents body hostilities; these acting together, undertaking conducting all doubt, formed of the Province or beyond insurgents, part Cuba; all doubt People beyond ship question was to be and was in connection with employed, employed, and -in the service of this body insurgents.” "We these observations regard entirely apposite, “ ” while the word mean entire of the people may body inhabitants state; or the state nation collectively .or its or political capacity; power country; ruling its section, this branch of the taken connection meaning ” with the in our words covers colony district,” judg- ment any insurgent people acting insurrectionary body hostilities,” together, although undertaking conducting THE THREE FRIENDS.

Opinion of the Court. not been Nor has is this its view recognized. belligerency confirmed the use made of than the same otherwise words sentence, are there succeeding part is, in another connection, relation to the employed hostilities, or the commission of the sub- “against cruising, citizens aDy state, jects, property foreign prince district or whom the United States people, and, are as thus are ”; used, at affected by obviously peace If thé of different considerations. necessity recognition of the of sea or con- hostilities, land, were respect objects by that would involve the concession ceded, of necessity of those the vessel is fitted for whose service respect out. other on conclusion the unreasonable rests Any assumption that the act is to remain ineffectual unless the Government the to liabilities incident incurs restraints and acknowledg- ment demands, of On the one hand, belligerency. pecuniary of or even be the failure in war, reprisals may consequence the of towards friendly power, performance obligations other, while on the involves belligerency recognition visitation, seizure of search and contra- blockade, rights and of claims for band on abandonment articles seas high our citizens from suffered account by damages reparation of warfare. prevalence one the means of No intention circumscribe avoiding as a condition acceptance contingencies by imposing be the other can imputed. when has political struggle recognized Belligerency and affects the interests of the attained a certain magnitude of maritime instance operations, recognizing power; or the vessels be insurgents, compelled, recognition may The if may pirates. third pursued molesting parties, 408; Law, Int. 3 Whart. Ambrose 25 Fed. Rep. Dig. Light, and authorities cited. 381; § to determine

But it department belongs political action must be and its when be recognized, belligerency-shall intention to the terms and expressed. accepted according between distinction belligerency recognition between revolt, recog- a condition recognition political TERM, 1896. Opinion of the Court. of war in a material sense and of war existence nition of the illustrated before us. case sense, in a sharply by legal has not the ex- For here the department recognized political istence of de belligerent power engaged hostility faoto the existence but has insurrectionary Spain, before, since forfeiture at the time and warfare prevailing been incurred. to have is alleged a formal was issued proclamation by On June in- State, by Secretary President countersigned States that the island of the United the people forming disturbances serious civil seat of accompanied Cuba of the established resistance to authority govern- armed by with which the United States are and ment of power Spain, on terms desire peace amity”; declaring remain States their as well citizens, of the United “the laws prohibit within to their all others jurisdiction, being subject in such disturbances to such estab- adversely from part taking lished by accepting exercising commissions government, it, enlistment warlike service procuring.others service, out or for such arming enlist fitting procuring armed of war for such service, out and be fitted ships aug- of war in such service force of any ship engaged menting States, and in a of the United on and port setting arriving the means enter- military foot preparing providing States be carried on from to against prises ; and all such of such admonishing territory government” from violation of and other to abstain citizens persons these laws. 2, 1895, President annual of December In his message An in insurrection, disturbed.

said: Cuba again gravely than the last which revolt, more active some preceding respects from 1868 to now exists of continued large part even island, interior of the some eastern menacing populations the coast. Besides commercial on exchanges deranging island, of which our takes the country predominant sen- condition of share, hostilities, this flagrant arousing and adventurous timental among sympathy inciting support of this entailed earnest effort on the our has people, part THREE FRIENDS. THE Opinion of the Court. our laws to and enforce obedience neutrality

Government from the United States of the territory being to prevent those from which to aid arms as a abused vantage ground sovereignty. Spanish of our coun- be traditional “Whatever may sympathy to be with a who seem as individuals strug- trymen freedom, and autonomy deepened greater larger gling must be behalf our neighbors, naturally such sympathy to observe of their Government is good plain duty yet international faith obligations relationship. not made more this be diffi- should duty performance of our-citizens of on the cult obliga- disregard part their which out their country, tions growing allegiance from individuals neu- restrain them should violating nation of are members bound which the which they trality in its stares. to observe relations sovereign friendly of our neither warmth sympathy people’s Though and con- nor our loss material the Cuban damage insurgents, made to futile thus far restore endeavors sequent upon nor our humane sensibilities order, shock may peace from the received cruelties especially appear war, have conducted characterize fiercely sanguinary shaken the the Government least determination it is to be fulfil international honestly obligation, yet every the devastation earnestly hoped, every ground, conflict order and armed and. may stayed quiet speedily in their train the island, restored distracted bringing thrift activity peaceful pursuits.” a further 27,1896, July promulgated, proclamation the President 7, 1896, annual of December message in Cuba called attention to the the insurrection fact an extended with all still continues its gave perplexities,” review the situation.

We are thus of the existence informed judicially conflict authority actual arms resistance are on terms with which States the United and of the insurgents peace amity, although acknowledgment not taken has belligerents by department political

VOL. CLXVI —5 TERM, 1896. 66 Opinion Court. be doubted that, and it cannot so, the act being place; applicable. question no into section We 5283 justification see importing it does not contain and which would make its words op- and; while eration recognition belligerency depend upon have been drawn with somewhat greater the libel might preci- that it not have been are should dismissed. sion, we opinion us to consider whether the conclusion vessel brings This bond and to have been released on stipulation. ought — section 938 of the Eevised It is Statutes provided claimant to court, prayer any any “Upon or seized merchandise, wares and vessel, goods, prosecuted law the revenue from under or ton- any respecting imports or or registering recording, nage, enrolling or vessels, should any thereof, delivered licensing, part the court shall three him, appoint proper persons ap- who shall be sworn in or court, praise property, open before commissioner etc. If, ... on the appointed, return the claimant, with one or more appraisement, to be sureties, court, shall execute bond approved . . etc., the United . the court States, shall, by rule, order such- vessel, wares merchandise to be de- goods, to such claimant. . livered . .” Section sale provides vessels condemned by virtue of law any revenue from respecting imports or the tonnage, registering recording, enrolling vessels, and for which bond licensing shall the claimant. ...” given Section authorizes the to do in vacation judges every- do could term time in thing regard bonding “to sales, and exercise other incidental every necessary power execution of the complete herein authority granted.” Section provides: “ When a warrant of arrest or other in rem is issued process cause of admiralty cases of jurisdiction, except seizure for under forfeiture States, law the United marshal shall the execution of such stay process, discharge arrested if the property has been process levied, re- 67

THE THREE FRIENDS. Opinion of the Court. the claimant of a bond or from the property stipu-

ceiving the in double amount claimed the libellant, lation with by to be the etc. . . surety, judge, sufficient approved this court section 917 rules may By prescribe practice “ in manner not inconsistent with law any admiralty any the United States.” as thus 10, Bule the sale of prescribed, provides perish- or their articles to abide and

able delivery upon security awarded the final decree.” money pay Buie 11 is as follows: manner, like where shall be the same In arrested, any ship claimant, to him be delivered application may, upon due had under a to be the direction of the appraisement, upon claimant’s court so much court, upon money depositing his order, as the court shall upon giving stipulation, sureties, aforesaid; as and if the claimant decline shall any discretion, such then the court its may, upon application, of either due order a shown, cause application party, into and the thereof to be sale of such proceeds brought ship, of, it most for the court or otherwise deem disposed may all benefit of concerned.” Brown, H. Fed.

In The 17 Mary Hogan, Rep. Judge deliver the District of York, of the Southern New refused Buie said vessel stipulation, referring' left to the court cases, in form in all but imperative exercised under which be peculiar discretion might rightly not be the rule should circumstances; clearly ap the suit was not enforcement where object plied demand, any nor to secure payment damages, money in order the vessel herself to take and forfeit possession in vio unlawful her expedition departure upon prevent he And States.” lation of the laws neutrality of section added: “It not the intention clearly value of the vessel forfeiture, imposing accept which of a hostile price friendly power, expedition against on the entail a hundredfold liabilities part might greater rules the'Government. No unnecessary interpretation result; yet should be would adopted permit TERM, Opinion of Court. result, even result, such expected might intent section of the vessel on bond. release plain expedition 5283 effectually altogether, prevent of the vessel and forfeiture herself. The seizure through is, entitled to therefore, retain her custody, Government to such a case.” 11 cannot be Rule properly applied Gall. Mr. Justice (decided In The Alligator, 1812), to an invariable in all referred cases practice proper Story for the to take bonds whenever seizure, application property for the a made claimant was was by purpose, had bond where the claimant been allowed with- case give out and-was to avoid objection payment by attempting alleg- in 1 Gall. ; and The its Struggle, (1813), ing irregularity eminent a similar same said: That judge, making ruling, where the claimant bail, it is voluntarily accepts delivery of his contest right estoppel validity security.”

But section of the Revised Statutes the exception introduced of seizure for of.“ cases forfeiture under law States.” And it the United seems obvious that the release of vessel on bond charged forfeiture under liability 5283, section before answer or hearing, objec- tion of the could not States, have been-contemplated. this However, as was not based absolute application but addressed to the sound discretion of the right, court, is to hold under that, enough circumstances of case, this the vessel should released it was, and be recalled on the should ground order release made. United v. improvidently Ames, States 99 U. S. If the vessel held without cause probable her owners can recover and, demurrage, vessels moreover, so situated are allowed to their frequently pursue avo- ordinary cations while in under custody suit, pending proper super- and in order to vision, prevent hardship. decree

The must be reversed, and the cause remanded District Court with directions to resume custody of vesseland with the case in proceed with this conformity opinion.

Ordered accordingly. THE THREE FRIENDS. Harlan, Opinion:

Dissenting J. Harlan Justice dissenting. I am unable to concur the views the court expressed by in the In delivered. strained opinion just my judgment very construction has been on the statute1 under which case put —arises one not its words, facts dis by justified by any record, closed facts of character of by public which we take It may seems to me that judicial cognizance. the better construction the learned given by judge I District Court. concur views general expressed in his able and which is below. opinion, given satisfactory That so states the reasons in opinion clearly forcibly of the conclusion' I support reached me that am relieved of the labor of one, which I would be to do, preparing glad if the of other business the court did not pressure respect render that course impracticable. has case been made present depend largely upon documents issued Executive

language public branch b}7 If the defects libel can be government. sup in that reference should made to the last annual plied way, documents sent President message accompanying Cleveland to the United States. In Congress the President said that the so-called Cuban message govern ment had all functions, to exercise its and given up attempt that it was is the for there best reason (what “confessedly “1 States, Every person who, the limits of the United § within arm, arms, attempts procures fits out and out or to be out or to fit and fitted armed, fitting furnishing, and knowingly or out or arm is concerned ing, any employed of vessel vessel shall be in the ser with intent that such state, people, any foreign prince any colony, vice of or to or or of district property cruise subjects, or commit or of hostilities citizens any state, prince foreign people, colony, or with whom or of district or peace, United a commission States are at or delivers or who issues vessel, territory jurisdiction within the or United States guilty high may employed, intent that she be so be deemed shall dollars, misdemeanor, and and ten shall be more than thousand fined not imprisoned tackle; vessel, every years. not more her than three And apparel materials, furniture, arms, together and and ammunition all stores,'which may procured equipment building and have been for the thereof, forfeited; shall be of informer and one to the use half other half to the use of United States.” TERM, 1896. Harlan, Opinion:

Dissenting J. have been government merely always fact) supposing to the under President, And in his date of report on paper.” of State said: “So far as 7, 1896, Secretary December not no effective shows, there is local only information our n the territories over insurgents they government not even a to establish tangible but there pretence run, confined Their administration anywhere. organization, of the hour, of the military operations exigencies the shifting and the most without definite centres, nomadic, lacking no features There municipal government. elementary nucleus statehood. The machinery where appears and the legitimate powers sovereignty rights exercising de obligations sovereignty responding facto face of other States is equal rights conspicu entails not It is discern a possible homogeneous lacking. ously functions entity, exerdising possessing political if left to itself, capable, maintaining administration in its own nor territory sustaining orderly government external with the family governments.” mal relations to me that thus described as not seem persons It does one on with no no paper, power except having dis- nomadic, constitute a administration, colonjq entirely ” “ of the statute. In within the my trict or meaning people ” or district should the words any colony, people opinion, district colony, only be applying interpreted cannot citizens I have “subjects, property.” agree the President and described by that the Secretary persons dis- State can regarded properly constituting citizens or It can- trict or subjects, having property. people, district or where the words be that any colony, people,” n different section have any first meaning appear i-a “the clause, same words subsequent subjects, from the ... district any colony, people, property citizens are at The United States with whom peace.” “ at be at or not said States cannot peace,” properly to. have no who except with government, ..insurgents, peace,” and are administration, no merely on power paper,” nomads!

THE THREE FRIENDS. Harlan, Opinion:

Dissenting J. Locke, District The opinion Judge, adopted by Justice as follows: rlan, Ha “ This has been vessel libelled forfeiture under the pro- visions of section 5283 of the Devised Statutes of the United States. “ The libel said steam vessel ivas 23d alleges day ‘ 1896,furnished, fitted out and armed with May, intent a.d. that she should be certain or employed by insurgents persons in the island of Cuba cruise or commit hostilities against citizens of the said island subjects, of Cuba and property and the Spain, citizens and King subjects, in the island of property King said. Spain Cuba, whom States are and were at that date at peace..’ To. there filed two : exceptions upon grounds “ 1st. That forfeiture under this section depends upon conviction of a the acts denounced; person persons doing “ 2d. That libel does not show that the vessel was armed fitted ivith intention out should she .be or state, service or of employed foreign prince district or known to the United people recognized States as a body politic.

“The first raised these exceptions dis- objection easily Court in the case of Supreme posed language after where, 12 Wheat. elaborate' Palmyra, argument, it. is said : “ ‘ forfeiture for exist, cases when the acts done Many no attaches and there is m rem penalty solely accompanying there is both a cases exist where forfeiture personam ; many in rem and neither class of cases has personal penalty; it ever been decided that the prosecutions dependént each court been, other. But the has so this under- practice in rem be, stands law to stands indepen- proceeding dent and criminal unaffected by any wholly proceeding . . . ‘In the of this court no personam.’ judgment per- sonal of the offender is to enforce conviction a for- necessary feiture rem in cases of this nature.’ TERM,

72 Harlan, Opinion: Dissenting J. more diffi the raised exceptions other by question of the of the clause section a construction and cult requires £ be in the vessel should intent that such employed with 5283, or of state, or any foreign prince service any more the or significance particularly district people,’ £ a determination district the werds colon}', people,’ the law are satisfied the whether requirements was intended to be vessel libel allegations of certain £in the service insurgents persons employed the statute admits a con Cuba,’ whether the island liable forfeiture when would make vessel struction one or more out the intended for employment fitted Executive as power by not political recognized persons nation. of our filed this libel has béen under which

“The section n originally 1794, of June Stat. 5, third section of the act contained the at that time c. and the 50, only language fitted out with intent that should be vessel provision service should employed foreign said vessel hostilities the sub- to cruise or commit or state against prince or state any foreign prince citizens property jects, States be at whom might peace. came act, was the While that question language case of v. Court Gelston Hoyt, before the Supreme considered neces- and, Wheat. plea speaking for under a defence -to a a seizure suit damages sary ‘ statute, it was held because bad, plea that the of Pétion and does aver Governments Christophe states which have been as such are duly foreign Government United States.’ “In this case there was no made between the distinction and the whose service the vessel was to be party employed whom intended, one hostilities were against language the court would the conclusion should fully justify both or states. either recognized, princes his work stated Wharton Subsequently, on International the outbreak of war between Law, iipon South American colonies and message Spain, upon special FRIENDS.

(cid:127)THE THREE Harlan, Opinion: Dissenting J. ‘ or the words subject, of the President Congress ’ were added district descrip- any colony, — one into whose both that

tion of both contemplated parties that one was to enter, the vessel employment whom the hostilities contemplated. character of these words

“Has the addition changed that of a from to such vessel of the employ party intending the declared by as is such, duly recognized political power of individuals to a collection court in v. that of Hoyt, Gelston has This ? question without political position any recognized been ex- times and several the courts been before frequently, I have in no case amined but and commented upon, with unconnected find has it been so been 'able to presented, it so that that there has been of fact, ruling questions as final and conclusive. it can be considered actions of the the are bound courts by “Beyond question in the the recognition branch of Government the political nations, of and relations character foreign political or war. and of the conditions peace act of modification, that “The as well as its act the party the same power used describing language was intended vessel or into in whose behalf whose service to used in political power enter as was describing committed; and be that hostilities should which it is intended to that it say itself as far as the impossible goes language one of the sentence political words clause using in another clause while intended, character and power connection the same used exactly the same sentence words intended force meaning the same apparently of a cer- individuals power political represent tain district people. re- act of 1794 that It is contended original although that each v. Hoyt, init Gelston the construction given quired States, the United yet should be one duly recognized party held it should be of 1818 so the modification changed character, their political regardless apply any persons, intended. be for whose service a vessel might about was brought this modification It is understood TERM, 1896. Harlan, Opinion: Dissenting J. Madison of President December 26, message the special this set presented by message clearly question ‘ He used. It is found that the says:

forth in the language not the viola- laws efficacy necessary prevent existing aas nation at towards States peace the United belliger- tions of unlawful acts on seas armed other high ent parties the waters of States.’ within vessels equipped of the condition affairs which further “In explanation of this statute considered this modification may called for Monroe, State, to Mr. Secretary Forsyth, letter of Mr. he out in which vessels 10, 1817, speaks going January some vessels hoisting flag belliger- merchant of other vessels armed and it, under and cruised equipped ents in_our after out and of sea, such flags getting hoisting ports on board citizens of the United States, taken having vessels at neutral have assumed the char- the arrival points, who, upon in the service of and soldiers some of officers parties acter then All contest prevailing. correspondence at that time was to enforce effort be- neutrality shows That then tween parties. parties belligerent .as and a in neutrality contest recognized belligerents be shown the first annual to mes- clearly preserved sought ‘ Monroe in 1817. President He says: Through every sage the the conflict United States an im- have maintained stage aid to in neither the neutrality, giving parties men, partial or munitions of war. have ships the money, They regarded in the of an insurrection or contest light ordinary rebellion, war as a civil between as but to parties nearly having equal, Our been neutral to powers equal rights. ports opened articles . . . that either was both, any permitted take have been free to to the'other.’ equally

“ It is considered that shows what was contempla- of thé tion at the time enactment of the law of and that 1818, what was intended was to out the of vessels to prevent fitting in the service of be district or colony, people, employed had as had which recognized belligerents, as an not been or which was not state, independent world political represented by prince.

THE THREE FRIENDS. Harlan,' Opinion:

Dissenting J. to There be appears nothing demanded at remedy used, or in the to show time; that the language words.so construed, added were intended to or be represent referring to the individual or district people' any colony, or people, number of them however as in their designated, except collective more than representative political capacity, any ‘ ’ there is to show that the term state in- original tended to refer to the individual of the state. people

“The of the enlistment act of Great language foreign Britain, Ill, 7, Geo. c. no leaves question § intention of Parliament in as it added that'legislation, ‘ words our statute words, or or part any province or of or people any person exercise exercising assuming in or over any powers .state, any foreign province parts any province people.’' “In order under statute which this give libel to. libellant, force contended for it is neces brought to eliminate from the it sary makes provision necessary. to declare how the' vessel is entire clause employed {in the service of or of state, prince .any colony, foreign district or to read into it the found in people,’ language the act of Great or its That was the Britain, equivalent. at the time general understanding passage origi nal that it was act considered to apply only duly recog nized nations is shown the fact that, the case of the Guinet, United States v. 2 Dall. under this same section — — first case under it the indictment brought alleged both state fully .terms Republic France, whose service the to be vessel was and the employed, King Great Britain were state and with whom the United prince States were at peace. Pet. In case of the States v. Quincy, ’ ‘ Court that the word was used in this says Supreme whose service the statute descriptive power simply was intended to be and is one vessel of denomi- employed, a nations acts applied Congress foreign power. 26 The Meteor, the case of 17 Fed. Cas. Fed. 178; In Cas. libel that the where the vessel was fitted original alleged TEBM, 1896. OCTOBEB Opinion: Harlan, Dissenting J. intent that she should be with the service

out employed to commit hostilities the Government certain against persons it was considered amend necessary by alleging Spain, to be was intended the Government that she employed there in that case certificate Chili; presented under of the fact of the war State, seal, Secretary existing were both Chili, and nations between they Spain at the United States were whom peace. to the declaration Court In addition Supreme States v. v. the United Quincy, of Gelston Hoyt cases under examination several has been incidentally question of The Carondelet, in the lower courts. In the case cases ‘ Brown Section 5283 is Fed. Judge says: designed Rep. our between to secure neutrality foreign belligerent general can But there be no obligation neutrality except powers. or some state or towards recognized power, dejure defacto. two at and as re least, Neutrality presupposes belligerents, belligerency i.e., any recognition belligerent spects — must follow the executive. To fall judiciary rights —--the the vessel must be statute, within the intended to be employed of one in the service district or state, foreign prince, colony, or commit to cruise hostilities against people subjects, of another with citizens or which the United States property The United States can are at be said to be at peace. hardly in the sense with a statute, faction which peace, as a are nor recognize could the unwilling government; hostilities such a mere fac committing cruising against well be said tion hostilities the sub committing citizens of a district or within the property jects, of the statute. So, the other hand, a meaning vessel the service of the faction of entering opposite Hippolyte, be said to could enter service of hardly foreign prince district or state, unless our Govern people, ment had faction as at least constitut Hipp'olyte’s which it does to have done.’ ing belligerent, appear the case of The Conserva, In case Rep. Fed. it was vessel was to be used in a contest alleged between Benedict Légitime Judge ‘The Hippolyte, says: THE THREE FRIENDS. Harlan, Opinion:

Dissenting J. libel in this case certain to facts have been charges done connection with the vessel the with intention that the vessel be the service of certain rebels employed state of in- surrection the against Government organized of to cruise and commit hostilities Hayti, the against subjects, citizens of of with property Republic Hayti, whom.the the. are States .at A of violation the peace. neutrality which the United States is to maintain between the obliged rebels mentioned and the Government of the of Republic is the of But Hayti the gravamen evidence fails charge. to show of state from court facts which the concluded that the United States was ever under of any obligation neutrality the rebels under mentioned, is how of neu- any obligation to the Government of of trality Republic Hayti.’ “In Trumbull, case United States v. Fed. Rep. Ross the different Judge authorities, examines carefully reviews he indicates how would have decided question clearly had it been for. question necessary purposes deciding £ the case before him. He Does section 5283 of the Re says: vised whom it is Statutes apply any people optional the United ? That States to treat section is found pirates it headed and was carried chapter Neutrality,” into enacted in Statutes, Revised and was originally .furtherance the nations as neutral. idea obligations very will the neutral treat each contend neutrality imports no alike; and it will accord ing party right privilege other, one that it from the will withhold withholds none from it one that accords to the other.’ “ In óf of United States v. the case which speaking Quincy, ’ £ £ it was said the word was one people denominar tions the act of he applied by Congress foreign power,’ 1This can in no mean association says: hardly the United States way recognized by are whose rebellion has not rebelling, and who at attained the war, dignity may, option the United them as States, be treated by pirates.’

“In the The Itata, case v. 56 Fed. United States Rep. before the Court Circuit appeal Appeals, ques- TERM, 1896. J; Harlan,

Dissenting Opinion: in an elaborate considered opinion, fully carefully tion was to decide found question necessary and although other grounds, as the case was disposed case, would have how apparent question considered of the word The force been necessary. had it been decided ‘ as examined, well statute, carefully in this as used people,’ of that the .force it is considered arid all as other questions, necessarily from such inves- result which must conclusion the be cannot avoided. tigations Hart et Brown of United v. al., the case States Judge In ‘ Section 5283 his view of this section by saying: expresses commit to hostilities armed cruisers, deals with designed another as foreign power of one favor foreign power we are with whom at peace.’ is used the court the case the The same language by 163 but it is contended in 632, States v. U. S. Wiborg, United the, this was modified the libellant that behalf of language in the same that the case, declaration made opera- subsequent on the of this statute is existence tion necessarily dependent the latter such state of In belligerency. using language that the had the entire statute it would seem under court Rev. Stat., and more the 5286, contemplation, particularly § which act, of the does not section plainly depend sixth original This a state of was sec- neutrality. upon belligerency immediate and consideration, then under context tion show, and sentence was section upon following and it cannot be considered that this based; suit was language section, was intended another consideration apply in no called in which was way question. of the in this case, With this understanding language remark or where case, decision, that judicial every ruling, examination, has been under consideration appears question in,favor be taken claimants position exceptions. 529, 18 Fed.

“In the case of The Mary Hogan, Rep. N. boxes intended of that vessel, in the cases of the charge it does not Fed. arms ammunition (20 appear Rep. 50), the claimant considered by raised'by question THREE THE FRIENDS. Opinion:

Dissenting Harlan, J. learned his in the case judge; language subsequent where it was raised and Carondelet, discussed, bemay his of what decision would proof accepted presumptive so had it been considered. been, have “The same is true the case of The City Mexico, Fed. decided me 148, this court. In that case Rep. the defence was different entirely force grounds, of the statute for, contended portion necessity there be an intent not should vessel should only hostilities, intend to commit but that she purposes should service of some employed political power, lost of and eliminated entirely from consideration sight the case. “The which I only expression authoritatively given able find ohe claimant the view of in his opposed is that of a the letter honorable exceptions portion State, General to the of December Attorney Secretary in the case of Gen. cited Op. Att’y do not I should be v. I consider that States Wiborg. doing that it has raised more unnoticed, myself justice pass in mind called for and more compelled my questions than else connected and consideration with thought anything I to reach a'different conclusion case; but feel compelled than is there expressed. that The and intent of letter was to general purpose in was not a declare that the insurrection Cuba fitting op- law, of this inasmuch as enforce the portunity provisions we them owed no such from protect duty insurgents between or rather contest hostilities, any Spain but hostilities, such could not be considered insurgents it that a condition was stated belligerency incidentally of this statute. not for the necessary operation “ It such no could not be considered that we owed insurgents with but them, such not we were not at be- peace because duty, cause we had them as a district or never recognized colony, people. was that the Cuban

“The-force and letter effect district or not as a had been colony, insurgents recognized TERM, 1896. Harlan, Dissenting Opinion: J. did this not If therefore, section and, apply. they

people, been or not entitled to so had not then so recognized or how can now be so described recognized recognized, in ? within terms the statute as to come question used in letter that the to show is considered “It argument be held to cases where there the statute should applicable one no condition of political power but belligerency under the old would have been as applicable fully recognized, v. decided contrary. when case Gelston Hoyt law, 'out to. be vessel was fitted fact that a employed The that such would not necessarily imply service prince the United States was a political recognized prince power ’ ‘ district the terms more than would any held But Court the act of 1818. clearly under Supreme it must be such prince that case that alleged the United States. as such by state has recognized for the would used therein call appli- The same argument out vessel fitted this for the cation of statute forfeiting individual, firm, to be employed by any corporation person, at hostilities state of committing purpose would come within the which provisions peace, plainly statute, it much be considered international however might national conduct. policy proper view of the It is construction my impossible required ‘ used to term a used language properly apply people,’ it the connection found, few any1 persons number and a small no occupying territory political organization, fitting although they might procure out and I find vessel. fail to arming giv any ground statute, a criminal its is, one as ing ordinary are is clear and application. distinct, question presented ’ ‘ certain in the island of Cuba insurgents persons properly described or a either of the terms a a ‘district’ by ‘colony,’ ‘ if so, ? which might inconveniences people,’ from the arise branch of our political recognizing such aas district or insurgents having political as in determin existence and cannot be considered belligerents to such whether are entitled ing they description. THREE FRIENDS.

THE Harlan, Opinion: Dissenting J.

“ is a criminal and aftd one, statute is to be penal This what the as clearly expresses language enlarged beyond being not the courts It is construe such intended. privilege of the accord- occasion, statutes according emergency to temporary questions policy, according ing to have been established a line of considered principles decisions. judicial “ if that embodied the ex- It is contended principles declared to be the can be no law for the law, are there ceptions of the out of armed and hostile vessels to fitting prevention insurrections and commit nations stir hostilities against up we are at that conclusion with which such would peace, liable to such make engaged any expedition parties as pirates. prosecution “ To the first these it is considered section points as has been intended to is, held, prevent any constantly of the character regardless parties expeditions, distinction whose behalf they only organized, being it criminal suit that in that case is necessary bring under this of this section overt while acts, portion prove is of the charge intent prosecution gravamen vessel, engaged regardless persons or innocence owners. out or the ignorance fitting be determined that can be should This is not case whether any subject parties questions public policy, no or not should have themselves to prosecution piracy should be they If so subject its consideration. weight piratical have the benefit necessity proving would than acts rather intentions. such parties true to be any It considered certainly be treated and would be considered Spain., would as pirates rec- any if acts of regardless such found hostility, them as them considering this nation give might ognition a people. political having character but regretting Without further argument, attempting trials have term of pre- duties jury of very busy pressing views, of my a fuller and more vented complete expression demands decisions the line conclusion that judicial is my VOJ.. CLXVI 6— TEEM, 1896. OCTOBEE Harlan, Opinion:

Dissenting J. construction should be the in that a section put upon question would hold that was the in which intention such Congress from enactment recognized prevent political powers having- their for service in the United States, vessels but prepared it was not intention to such that the extend prohibition be or fitted out to individuals vessels employed by private however be for or they might designated, parties, piratical could hostilities where no be obtained other protection from a In case commission such recognized government. they be -held would liable-under section provides out of or if were military expedition, guilty fitting acts would become liable seas they piratical high the laws of such It is con- under acts. punishment that at sidered the time the amendment of 1818 this con- had declared, of the amendment struction the language no but was construction, intended way change intended to to the new only apply designation political pow- the existence of which had if ers, been recognized belligerents not as who entitled to the independents, right neutrals; that the libel herein not a case as does state such statute, in that it not does contemplated by allege had been fitted said vessel out with intent that be she employed service or of state, any foreign prince any colony, district as such people recognized power political States, and unless it can be so-amended should n and it is ordered. dismissed, so “Since ^[*] writing ^[*] foregoing, ^[*] libel herein ^{[*] [*]} has been amended certain inserting place ‘by insurgents ‘ in the island of aof Cuba,’ the words in the service pe'rsons certain in armed wit, certain then people, people engaged to the resistance Government of the King Spain of Cuba,’ island but it is that the considered objection overcome, libel not been has sustaining exceptions has been somewhat although language changed, inas- substance has not been amended in the material part, ’ ‘ as it much used word appears clearly individual as an sense, personal organized RAILWAY. &c. v. PITTSBURGH BARBER Syllabus. to a state, any way corresponding power political and can in no con- district, way my change colony

prince, and the libel must be dismissed.” expressed, heretofore clusion PITTSBURGH, FORT WAYNE AND BARBER v. RAILWAY COMPANY. CHICAGO OF FROM CIRCUIT COURT APPEALS FOR CERTIFICATE THE THE CIRCUIT. THIRD Submitted 1896. 1897. May Decided March 1, No. ejectment, judgment in when conclusive single

A under verdict State, eject- a bar a no to second action of and in courts laws in of the United States. ment the courts in of certain words deeds wills real estate has When construction State, property in a rule .of construction is to be a settled become determining by of the United States the courts title followed State, parties. the same or between between other whether land within highest court of a State construction of single A decision particular is not conclusive evidence of the a devise law the words States, involving State, court of the United con- a case a parties, words, like other even same or between struction privies, presented parties or their unless same under such between rights. adjudication of their be an circumstances as taking passage effect before Pennsylvania, a In executed under will pass 1833,by devises of real estate shall “all of the statute of devised, premises although there in the estate of the testator the whole appear perpetuity, unless it a de- or of no of inheritance be words will, that the over, or otherwise of limitation or words vise estate,” beginning with the state- devise less testator intended making a distribution of his desirous of ment that the testator was parcel land, decease, without his a devise property in the event of fee, qualified by inheritance, unless other gave an estate words provisions of the will. “ dying offspring by without A in the event of married woman devise over ” equivalent dying her in the event of without a devise her husband issue.” taking' effect before the statute of Pennsylvania, In in a will executed fee, certain enlarging estates devise lots estates tail into unmarried, or, married, dying if .fee, of A and in the event land A husband, sold, lots then these are to dying offspring her without

Case Details

Case Name: The Three Friends

Court Name: Supreme Court of the United States

Date Published: Mar 1, 1897

Citation: 166 U.S. 1

Docket Number: 701

Court Abbreviation: SCOTUS