Edward Pearcy v. Nevada Stranahan

• Decision Date: 08 April 1907
• Docket Number: No. 1,1
• Citation: 51 L.Ed. 793,205 U.S. 257,27 S.Ct. 545
• Parties: EDWARD J. PEARCY, Plff. in Err., v. NEVADA N. STRANAHAN
• Court: U.S. Supreme Court

205 U.S. 257

27 S.Ct. 545

51 L.Ed. 793

EDWARD J. PEARCY, Plff. in Err.,

v NEVADA N. STRANAHAN.

No. 1.

Submitted March 4, 1907.

Decided April 8, 1907.

Mr. James C. Lenney for plaintiff in error.

[Argument of Counsel from pages 257-261 intentionally omitted] Attorney General Bonaparte, Solicitor General Hoyt, and Otis J. Carlton for defendant in error.

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller delivered the opinion of the court:

Plaintiff brought his action in the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of New York against the then collector of the port of New York to recover the value of certain cigars seized by him, which had been brought to that port from the Isle of Pines, where they had been produced and manufactured. This seizure was made under the Dingley act, so called (act July 24, 1897, 30 Stat. at L. 151, chap. 11, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 1626), and the regulations of the Secretary of the Treasury thereunder. The Dingley act provided for the imposition of duties 'on articles imported from foreign countries,' and in plaintiff's complaint it was asserted that the Isle of Pines was 'in possession of and part of the United States,' and hence domestic territory. The government demurred, the demurrer was sustained, the complaint dismissed, and the case brought here on a writ of error.

Whether the Isle of Pines was a part of the United States is a conclusion of law not admitted by the demurrer. It was certainly not such before the treaty of peace with Spain [30 Stat. at L. 1754], and, if it became so, it was by virtue of that treaty. The court takes judicial cognizance whether or not a given territory is within the boundaries of the United States, and is bound to take the fact as it really exists, however it may be averred to be. Jones v. United States, 137 U. S. 202, 34 L. ed. 691, 11 Sup. Ct. Rep. 80; Lincoln v. United States, 197 U. S. 417, 49 L. ed. 816, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 455; Taylor v. Barclay, 2 Sim. 213.

August 12, 1898, a protocol of agreement for a basis for the establishment of peace was entered into between the United States and Spain, which provided:

'Article 1. Spain will relinquish all claim of sovereignty over and title to Cuba. 'Article 2. Spain will cede to the United States the island of Porto Rico and other islands now under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies, and also an island in the Ladrones, to be selected by the United States.' 30 Stat. at L. 1742.

This was followed by the treaty of peace, ratified April 11, 1899, containing the following articles:

'Article 1. Spain relinquishes all claim of sovereignty over and title to Cuba.

'And as the island is, upon its evacuation by Spain, to be occupied by the United States, the United States will, so long as such occupation shall last, assume and discharge the obligations that may, under international law, result from the fact of its occupation, for the protection of life and property.

'Article 2. Spain cedes to the United States the island of Porto Rico and other islands now under Spanish sovereignty in the West Indies, and the island of Guam in the Marianas or Ladrones.' 30 Stat. at L. 1754, 1755.

In Neely v. Henkel, 180 U. S. 109, 45 L. ed. 448, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 302 (Jan. 14, 1901), the question was whether Cuba was a foreign country or foreign territory within the act of Congress of June 6, 1900 (31 Stat. at L. 656, chap. 793, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 3591) providing for the extradition from the United States of persons committing crimes within any foreign country or foreign territory or any part thereof, occupied or under the control of the United States. And it was held that Cuba was within this description. Mr. Justice Harlan, delivering the opinion of the court, said:

'The facts above detailed make it clear that, within the meaning of the act of June 6, 1900, Cuba is foreign territory. It cannot be regarded, in any constitutional, legal, or international sense, a part of the territory of the United States.

'While by the act of April 25, 1898 [30 Stat. at L. 364, chap. 189], declaring war between this country and Spain, the President was directed and empowered to use our entire land and naval forces, as well as the militia of the several states to such extent as was necessary, to carry such act into effect, that authorization was not for the purpose of making Cuba an integral part of the United States, but only for the purpose of compelling the relinquishment by Spain of its authority and government in that island, and the withdrawal of its forces from Cuba and Cuban waters. The legislative and executive branches of the government, by the joint resolution of April 20, 1898 [30 Stat at L. 738, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 2790], expressly disclaimed any purpose to exercise sovereignty, jurisdiction, or control over Cuba 'except for the pacification thereof,' and asserted the determination of the United States, that object being accomplished, to leave the government and control of Cuba to its own people. All that has been done in relation to Cuba has had that end in view, and, so far as the court is informed by the public history of the relations of this country with that island, nothing has been done inconsistent with the declared object of the war with Spain.

'Cuba is none the less foreign territory, within the meaning of the act of Congress, because it is under a military governor appointed by and representing the President in the work of assisting the inhabitants of that island to establish a government of their own, under which, as a free and independent people, they may control their own affairs without interference by other nations. The occupancy of the island by troops of the United States was the necessary result of the war. That result could not have been avoided by the United States consistently with the principles of international law or with its obligations to the people of Cuba.

'It is true that, as between Spain and the United States, indeed, as between the United States and all foreign nations, Cuba, upon the cessation of hostilities with Spain, and after the treaty of Paris, was to be treated as if it were conquered territory. But, as between the United States and Cuba, that island is territory held in trust for the inhabitants of Cuba, to whom it rightfully belongs and to whose exclusive control it will be surrendered when a stable government shall have been established by their voluntary action.'

If, then, the Isle of Pines was not embraced in article 2 of the treaty, but was included within the term 'Cuba' in article 1, and therefore sovereignty and title were merely relinquished, it was 'foreign country' within the Dingley act.

This inquiry involves the interpretation which the political departments have put upon the treaty. For, in the language of Mr. Justice Gray, in Jones v. United States, 'who is the sovereign, de jure or de facto, of a territory, is not a judicial but a political question, the determination of which by the legislative and executive departments of any government conclusively binds the judges as well as all other officers, citizens, and subjects of that government.'

By the joint resolution of April 20, 1898 (30 Stat. at L. 738, U. S. Comp. Stat. 1901, p. 2790), entitled 'Joint Resolution for the Recognition of the Independence of the People of Cuba, Demanding That the Government of Spain Relinquish Its Authority and Government in the Island of Cuba, and to Withdraw Its Land and Naval Forces from Cuba and Cuban Waters, and Directing the President of the United States to Use the Land and Naval Forces of the United States to Carry These Resolutions into Effect,' the United States disclaimed any disposition or intention to exercise sovereignty or control over Cuba, except in the pacification thereof, and asserted its determination, when that was accomplished, to leave the control of the island to its people. What was the signification of the word 'Cuba' at that time?

The record of the official acts of the Spanish government from 1774 to 1898 demonstrates that the Isle of Pines was included in the political division known as 'Cuba.' The first official census of Cuba, in 1774; the 'Statistical Plan of the Ever Faithful Isle of Cuba for the Year 1827;' the establishment by the governor general, in 1828, of a colony on the island; the census of 1841; the budgets of receipts and expenses; the census for 1861, 1877, 1887, and so on, all show that the Isle of Pines was, governmentally speaking, included in the specific designation 'Cuba' at the time the treaty was made and ratified, and the documents establish that it formed a municipal district of the province of Habana.

In short, all the world knew that it was an integral part of Cuba, and in view of the language of the joint resolution of April 20, 1898, it seems clear that the Isle of Pines was not supposed to be one of the 'other islands' ceded by article 2. Those were islands not constituting an integral part of Cuba, such as Vieques, Culebra, and Mona islands, adjacent to Porto Rico.

Has the treaty been otherwise interpreted by the political departments of this government? The documents to which we have had access, with the assistance of the presentation of the facts condensed therefrom in the brief for the United States, enable us to sufficiently indicate the situation in that regard, and we think it proper to do this, notwithstanding the determination of the case turns at last on a short point requiring no elaboration.

The Spanish evacuated Havana January 1, 1899, and the government of Cuba was transferred to a military governor as the representative of the President of the United States. The President ordered, August 17, 1899, a census to be taken as a first step toward assisting 'the people of Cuba' to establish 'an effective system of self-government.' In accomplishing this the island was divided into 1,607 enumeration districts. Three enumerators took the census of the Isle of Pines, which was described...