TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS.
Signed at Wash-
Senate February
ratified by Cuba
Supplementary convention between the United States and Cuba extend-
ing the time within which may be exchanged the ratifications of the
commercial convention signed on December 11, 1902.
ington January 26, 1903; ratification advised by the
16, 1903; ratified by the President March 30, 1903;
March 30, 1903; ratifications exchanged at Washington March 31, 1903;
proclaimed December 17, 1903. (33 Stat. L., pt. 2, p. 2145) --.
Postal convention between the United States of America and the Re-
public of Cuba. (June 16, 1903, 33 Stat. L., pt. 2, p. 2186)
Protocol modifying the postal convention between the United States of
America and the Republic of Cuba signed on the 16th of June, 1903.
(Sept. 9, 1903, Stat. L., pt. 2, p. 2192).
Convention between the United States and the Republic of Panama for
the construction of a ship canal to connect the waters of the Atlantic
and Pacific oceans. Signed at Washington November 18, 1903; ratifica-
tion advised by the Senate February 23, 1904; ratified by the President
February 25, 1904; ratified by Panama December 2, 1903; ratifications
exchanged at Washington February 26, 1904; proclaimed February 26,
1904. (33 Stat. L., pt. 2, p. 2234).
Treaty between the United States and Cuba embodying the provisions
defining the future relations of the United States with Cuba contained
in the act of Congress approved March 2, 1901; making appropriations
for the Army. Signed at Habana May 22, 1903; ratification advised by
the Senate March 22, 1904; ratified by the President June 25, 1904;
ratified by Cuba June 20, 1904; ratifications exchanged at Washington
July 1, 1904; proclaimed July 2, 1904. (33 Stat. L., pt. 2, p. 2248) ---
Supplementary convention between the United States and Cuba extend-
ing the period within which may be exchanged the ratifications of the
treaty of May 22, 1903, between the United States and Cuba, embody-
ing the provisions defining their future relations. Signed at Washing-
ton January 20, 1904; ratification advised by the Senate January 27,
1904; ratified by the President June 25, 1904; ratified by Cuba June 20,
1904; ratifications exchanged at Washington July 1, 1904; proclaimed
July 2, 1904. (33 Stat. L., pt. 2, p. 2261).
Treaty between the United States and Cuba for the mutual extradition
of fugitives from justice. Signed at Washington April 6, 1904; ratifica-
tion advised by the Senate April 26, 1904; ratified by the President
January 24, 1905; ratified by Cuba January 16, 1905; ratifications
exchanged at Washington January 31, 1905; proclaimed February
8, 1905. (33 Stat. L., pt. 2, p. 2265 ) – –
Protocol amending Spanish text of Cuban extradition treaty signed April
6, 1904. Signed at Washington December 6, 1904; ratification advised
by the Senate December 15, 1904; ratified by the President January
24, 1905; ratified by Cuba January 16, 1905; ratifications exchanged at
Washington January 31, 1905; proclaimed February 8, 1905. (33
Stat. L., pt. 2, p. 2273) --
PROCLAMATIONS BY THE PRESIDENT.
Reserving public lands in Porto Rico for naval purposes.
26, 1903, 23 Stat. L., pt. 2, p. 2314) –
Reserving public lands in Porto Rico for public uses. (No. 5, June 30,
1903, 33 Stat. L., pt. 2, p. 2315).
Convening extraordinary session of Congress for the purpose of considering and determining whether the approval of the commercial convention between the United States and the Republic of Cuba, signed at Havana on December 11, 1902, shall be given. (No. 8, October 20, 1903, 33 Stat. L., pt. 2, p. 2319).
Extending copyright benefits to citizens of Cuba. 1903, 33 Stat. L., pt. 2, p. 2324).
Assuming control of Hawaii light-house establishment. ber 28, 1903, 33 Stat. L., pt. 2, p. 2329).
DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT.
LEADING CASES, WITH STATEMENTS AND SYLLABI, WHICH AROSE IN OR RELATE TO THE INSULAR AND ISTHMIAN POSSESSIONS OF THE UNITED STATES, AND CUBA, HEARD AND DECIDED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES BETWEEN JANUARY 1, 1898, AND DECEMBER 3, 1906.
In re Vidal. José Juan Vidal et al. Application for leave to file a peti-
tion for a writ of certiorari. (179 U. S., 126)
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).
Charles F. W. Neely, appellant, v. 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)_.
Elias S. A. De Lima, Elias A. De Lima, and Edward De Lima, composing the
firm of D. A. De Lima & Co., plaintiffs in error, v. George R. Bidwell,
collector of the port of New York, defendant in error. Error to the cir-
cuit court of the United States for the southern district of New York.
(182 U. S., 1).
No. 340. John H. Goetze, doing business under the firm name of John H.
Goetze & Company, appellant, v. The United States. No. 515. George
W. Crossman and Herman Sielcken, composing the firm of W. H. Cross-
man & Bro., appellant, v. The United States. Appeal from the circuit
court of the United States for the southern district of New York.
U. S., 221)---.
Henry W. Dooley et al., engaged in trade and commerce between Porto
Rico and New York under the firm name of Dooley, Smith & Co., plain-
tiffs in error, v. The United States. Error to the circuit court of the
United States for the southern district of New York. (182 U. S., 222)_
Samuel B. Downes, doing business under the firm name of S. B. Downes &
Company, plaintiffs in error, v. George R. Bidwell, collector of the port
of New York, defendant in error. Error to the circuit court of the
United States for the southern district of New York. (182 U. S., 244)_
Carlos Armstrong, a British subject, a merchant carrying on business be-
tween Porto Rico and the United States, appellant, v. The United States.
Appeal from the Court of Claims. (182 U. S., 243)
Fourteen diamond rings, Emil Pepke, claimant, v. The United States.
Error in the district court of the United States for the northern dis-
trict of Illinois. (183 U. S., 176)_.
Henry W. Dooley et al., engaged in trade and commerce between Porto
Rico and New York under the firm name of Dooley, Smith & Company,
plaintiffs in error, v. The United States. Error to the circuit court of
the United States for the southern district of New York. (183 U. S.,
151)
Territory of Hawaii, appellant, v. Osaki Mankichi, appellee. Appeal from
the district court of the United States for the Territory of Hawaii.
(190 U. S., 197).
Czarnikow, MacDougall & Company (Ltd.), plaintiffs in error, v. George R.
Bidwell, collector of the port of New York, defendant in error. In error
to the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of
New York. (191 U. S., 559).
Warner, Barnes & Company (Ltd.), plaintiffs in error, v. Nevada N.
Stranahan, collector of customs of the port of New York, defendant in
error. In error to the circuit court of the United States for the south-
ern district of New York. (191 U. S., 560).
Isabella Gonzales, appellant, v. Wm. Williams, U. S. Commissioner of Im-
migration at the port of New York, appellee. Appeal from the circuit
court of the United States for the southern district of New York. (192
U. S., 1)--
J. Ribas y Hijo, a Spanish corporation doing business in the island of
Porto Rico, appellants, v. The United States. Appeal from the district
court of the United States for the district of Porto Rico. (194 U. S.,
315)
Harold Crowley, plaintiff in error, v. The United States. Error to the dis-
trict court of the United States for the district of Porto Rico. (194
U. S., 461).
Thomas E. Kepner, plaintiff in error, v. The United States. Error to the
supreme court of the Philippine Islands. (195 U. S., 100) –
Fred L. Dorr, plaintiff in error, v. The United States. Error to the supreme
court of the Philippine Islands. (195 U. S., 138).
Secundino Mendezona y Mendezona, plaintiff in error, v. The United
States. Error to the supreme court of the Philippine, Islands. (195
U. S., 158)
Ricardo Amado, plaintiff in error, v. The United States. Error to the dis-
trict court of the United States for the district of Porto Rico. (195
U. S., 172)
Frederick W. Lincoln et al., trading under the firm name of Henry W.
Peabody & Co., plaintiffs in error, v. The United States. (No. 149.) In
error to the Supreme Court of the United States for the southern dis-
trict of New York--
Warner, Barnes & Co. (Limited), appellant, v. The United States. (No.
466.) Appeal from the Court of Claims. (197 U. S., 419; also, 202
U. S., 484).
Rafael and Euripides Rodriguez, plaintiffs in error, v. The United States.
Error to the district court of the United States for the district of Porto
Rico. (198 U. S., 156).
Valentin Trono et al., plaintiffs in error, v. The United States. Error to
the supreme court of the Philippine Islands. (199 U. S., 521) -
The United States, appellant, v. The American Sugar Refining Company,
appellee. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the
southern district of New York. (202 U. S., 563) __
Franklin Sugar Refining Company, appellants, v. The United States.
peal from the circuit court of the United States for the eastern district
of Pennsylvania. (202 U. S., 580)
|