is hereby charged with all administrative duties relating to the said light-house establishment. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed. Done at the City of Washington, this twenty-eighth day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred and three, and of the independ[SEAL.] ence of the United States the one hundred and twenty-eighth. By the President: FRANCIS B. LOOMIS THEODORE ROOSEVELT Acting Secretary of State. APPENDIX. LEADING CASES, WITH STATEMENTS AND SYLLABI, WHICH AROSE IN OR 1, 1898, AND DECEMBER 3, 1906. 287 DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT. Supreme Court of the United States. IN RE VIDAL. JOSÉ JUAN VIDAL ET AL. Application for leave to file a petition for a writ of certiorari. Original. No number. (179 U. S. 126.) Submitted April 23, 1900. Decided November 12, 1900. SYLLABUS. Section 716, Rev. Stat., does not empower this Court to review the proceedings of military tribunals by certiorari. The act of April 12, 1900 (c. 191), having discontinued the tribunal established Opinion by Fuller, C. J. No dissenting opinion. This was an application for leave to file a petition for writ of certiorari to test the validity of the judgment of the United States provisional court of Porto Rico in a quo warranto proceeding to oust petitioner and others from municipal offices in the town of Guayama. Supreme Court of the United States. Charles F. W. Neely, Appellant, v. Wm. Henkel, United States Marshal, etc., Appellee (No. 1). Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of New York. (180 U. S. 109.) No. 387. October term, 1900. Argued December 10 and 11, 1900. Decided January 14, 1901. SYLLABUS. There is no merit in the contention that Article 401 of the Penal Code of Cuba, which provides that the public employe, who, by reason of his office, has in his charge public funds or property, and takes or consents that others should take any part therefrom, shall be punished, applies only to persons in the public employ of Spain. Spain having withdrawn from the island, its successor has become "the public," to which the code, remaining unrepealed, now refers. Within the meaning of the act of June 6, 1900 (c. 793, 31 Stat., 656), providing for the surrender of persons committing defined crimes within a foreign country occupied by or under the control of the United States, and fleeing to the United States, or any Territory thereof, or the District of Columbia, Cuba is foreign territory which can not be regarded in any constitutional, legal or international sense as a part of the territory of the United States; and this is not affected by the fact that it is under a military governor, appointed by and representing the President in the work of assisting the inhabitants of the island in establishing a government of their own. As between the United States and Cuba that island is territory held in trust for its inhabitants, 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. The act of June 6, 1900, is not unconstitutional in that it does not secure to the accused when surrendered to a foreign country for trial all the rights, privileges and immunities that are guaranteed by the Constitution to persons charged with the commission in this country of crime against the United States. The provisions of the Constitution relating to writs of habeas corpus, bills of attainder, ex post facto laws, trial by jury for crimes, and generally to the fundamental guarantees of life, liberty and property embodied in that instrument have no relation to crimes committed without the jurisdiction of the United States, against the laws of a foreign country. When an American citizen commits a crime in a foreign country, he can not complain if required to submit to such modes of trial and to such punishment as the laws of that country may prescribe for its own people, unless a different mode be provided for by treaty stipulations between that country and the United States. The contention that the United States recognized the existence of an established Opinion by Harlan, J. No dissenting opinion. Briefly stated, this was a habeas corpus proceeding to test the constitutionality of an act-act of June 6, 1900-providing for extradition of persons charged with offenses committed in territory under the control of the United States. Supreme Court of the United States. Charles F. W. Neely, Appellant, . Wm. Henkel, United States Marshal, etc., Appellee (No. 2). Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of New York. (180 U. S. 126.) No. 406. October term, 1900. Argued December 10 and 11, 1900. Decided January 14, 1901. SYLLABUS. The record in this case, it is admitted, shows the same state of facts as in the case just decided (No. 387, 180 U. S. 109). This was a second application for a writ of habeas corpus, upon substantially the same grounds as were |