The Supreme Court's Decision: Cuba and Republic

What legislation by Congress could be more appropriate for the protection of life and property in Cuba, while occupied and controlled by the United States, than legislation securing the return to that island, to be tried by its constituted authorities, of those who, having committed crimes there, flee to this country to escape arrest, trial, and punishment?

No crime is mentioned in the extradition act of June 6, 1900, that does not have some relation to the safety of life and property. And the provisions of that act requiring the surrender of any public officer, employe, or depositary fleeing to the United States, after having committed, in a foreign country or territory occupied by or under the control of the United States, the crime of embezzlement or criminal malversation of the public funds have special application to Cuba in its present relation to this country.

The court declined to enter upon the question as to what the obligations of the United States would have been in the matter of protecting life and property in Cuba if not required to do so by the obligations of the treaty of Paris. "That question," he said, "is not open on this record for examination and upon it we express no opinion. It is quite sufficient in this case to adjudge, as we now do, that it was competent for Congress, by legislation, to enforce or give efficacy to the provisions of the treaty made by the United States and Spain with respect to Cuba and its people."

It was also argued on behalf of Neely that as peace now exists in Cuba, and has existed there since the Spanish forces evacuated the island, the occupancy and control of that island under the military authority of the United States is without warrant in the Constitution and is an unauthorized interference with the internal affairs of a friendly power.

"Apart from the view that it is not competent for the judiciary to make any declaration upon the question of the length of time during which Cuba may be rightfully occupied and controlled by the United States in order to effect its pacification--it being the function of the political branch of the government to determine when such occupation and control shall cease, and therefore when the troops of the United States shall be withdrawn from Cuba--the contention that the United States recognized the existence of an established government known as the Republic of Cuba, but is now using its military or executive power to displace or overthrow it, is without merit. The declaration by Congress that the people of Cuba were and of right ought to be free and independent was not intended as a recognition of the existence of an organized government instituted by the people of that island in hostility to the government maintained by Spain. Nothing more was intended than to express the thought that the Cubans were entitled to enjoy--to use the language of the President in his message of December 5, 1897--that measure of self-control which is the inalienable right of man, protected in their right to reap the benefit of the exhaustless treasure of their country.

"Both the legislative and executive branches of the government concurred in not recognizing the existence of any such government as the Republic of Cuba. It is true that the co-operation of troops commanded by Cuban officers was accepted by the military authorities of the United States in its efforts to overthrow Spanish authority in Cuba. Yet from the beginning to the end of the war the supreme authority in all military operations in Cuba and in Cuban waters against Spain was with the United States, and those operations were not in any sense under the control or direction of the troops commanded by Cuban officers."

The final conclusion of the court was announced as follows:

"We are of the opinion, for the reasons stated, that the act of June 6, 1900, is not in violation of the constitution of the United States, and that this case comes within the provisions of that act. The court below having found that there was probable cause to believe the appellant guilty of the offence charged, the order for his extradition was proper, and no ground existed for his discharge on habeas corpus. The judgment of the Circuit Court is therefore affirmed."

Discussing the advisability of the United States at some future time annexing Cuba, a prominent writer in the North American Review said: "It is impossible not to look back without regret on our wasted opportunities. In view of our pledge, it was as certain on January 1 as it is to-day that we could gain annexation only through the will of the Cuban people. What have we done to gain it? What should have been our policy?

"The most logical course would seem to have been to give Cuba, as far as commerce is concerned, the rights and privileges of an American State; that is to say, to form with Cuba a customs union; our tariff being applied in Cuba, but with free trade between Cuba and the United States. In a word, we should have appealed to them through their own pockets.

"The immediate result of such a policy would have been to increase largely the profits to be derived from Cuban sugar and tobacco. As was the case in Hawaii, large amounts of American capital would have been brought in for investment. Deserted plantations and mills would have been again in operation, and money and work plentiful.