Show NEELEY EXTRADITION CASE I Opening Argument Mado in United States Supreme Court Washington Dee 10The Neeley extradition ex-tradition case was argued In the Supreme Su-preme court All the Judges were Interesting present The argument developed I teresting and Important questions of law with reference to the right of the United States to extradite a fugitive criminal in the absence of an extradition extradi-tion treaty and especially with reference refe-rence to the right of the President Mince the ratification of the treaty of Paris to maintain l military form of L government in the Island of Cuba I The latter feature of the argument made It the first of the arguments which brings up for final decision by the Supreme court the constitutional relations between this country and the territorial acquisitions which l t has 2 gained as a losult of the Spanish I L American war The Neeley case referred re-ferred exclusively to the character of 11 these relations so far as the Island of Cuba was concerned and thus presented 0 sented an Independent question from that which will he argued on December 17th when the character of these rein I tlonn with Porto HJj > and the Philippines will be under consideration pines contldcrton 1lncl w1 lohn D Lindsay of the Now York 1 I bar opened the argument for Neeley I Ho claimed that there existed In Cuba 0 prior to our intervention a Cuban re 1 publlr This republic ho argued the I United States recognized in April 1S9S f when It passed a Joint resolution t1 nlgncd by the President which declared 1 de-clared that the people of the Island of Cuba arc of right and ought to be free p and Independent He claimed that the United States did not make war against the Cuban republic thus recognized recog-nized but was Its ally and that there fore the success of the American army did not mean that Cuba was conquered but that the Spanish troops were driven I driv-en out of the territory of ti friendly L ally He contended therefore that i1 when the treaty of Paris was ratified the war ceaB < sd and as no war had been declared against the Cuban republic all further jtistitlcn ton undt the war making power to subject Cuba censed and the President should immediately upon the ratification of the treaty or lthin a rtiisoinible time thereafter hac withdrawn the army Ho claimed I therefore that the Institution and maintenance by the President of a military government In Cuba was and ID without authority under Interna tional law and in flagrant contraven i lonal 1 tion of the Constitution of the United I StateN r 7 I He further urged that such military government was unconstitutional es l BonUally a war against the Cuban republic re-public and o Congress alone had the authority to declare war against the I Cuban republic the control of Cuba I Culan republc by the President a commanderIn I virtual prosecution of war L chlcf was a prosecuton I without tho authority of Congress Ho dcnlCK that such government could bo Juntlfiod under tho war ns the war power has no existence except In time i of war when the war IB authorized by Congress and that the President could QL not uw the national forces for they the-y purpose of governing Cuba He relied I jjd especially upon the rnie of ex parte MllUgan He aigueJ finally that In any d event as the trial In the Cuban courts Is without a grand Jury or n petit Jury Neeley could not be tried before them without violation of the sixth seventh and eighth amendments to the Consti I tu lon Owing to the lateness of tho hour when Mr Lindsay concluded his argu ment Assistant AttorneyGeneral r James II Beck who was to reply on behalf of the Government did not speak but he Is expected to do so tomorrow I morrow I |