The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1900-12-18
FIVE HOURS FOR EACH SIDE
ATTORNEY GENERAL GRIGGS TO
REPRESENT THE GOVERNMENT.
Opening Arguments Mad by Messrs.
Brown and Perkins, Leading
Counsel for the Appellants.

war with Spain, with respect to the United
States proper; to say whether their people
are citizens, and to indicate whether the
Constitution follows the flag"
One of the cases is that of John II. Goetz,
who, in June, 1899. imported from Porto
Rico a quantity of leaf tobacco into the
United States, through the port of New
York, and protested against the assess
ment of duty on the importation, asserting
that the tobacco was not subject TO duty
because Porto Rico at the time OF the inn
portation was not a foreign county, and be-
cause. therefore, the imposition of duties
on goods brought from a place within the
territory of the United States into a port
of the United States is not lawful and valid
under the Constitution"
The collector of the port and the board
of general appraisers both ruled against
him. as did the United States Circuit Court
for the Southern district of New York,
when Goetz took the case before that
tribunal. From the opinion of that court
the importer appealed TO the United States
Supreme Court.
The other case is known as the -four
teen diamond ring case. In that suit the
claimant is one Manual Pepke, who served
as a soldier of the United States in Luzon.
in the Philippines. While there he pur-
chased or acquired the rings in question
and brought them into the United States
without paying duty upon them, some time
in the year 1899, between July 81 and Sept.
%. The rings were seized on May is last.
at Chicago, by a United States customs
officer. as merchandise liable to duty which
should have been invoiced, and was
fraudulently imported and brought into the
United States contrary 10 law. An infoT-
nation for the forfeiture or the rings was
filed on behalf of the government June l
last, to which the claimant pleaded, set
ting up that at the time he acquired the
property LuZon was a part of the territory
of the United States and that the seizure
was contrary to the claimants rights as a
citizen of the United States under the Con-
stitution. and particularly under Section
2. Article 4. thereof. and he insisted that
under Article j, Section s, Congress is
required TO see that all taxes and duties
shall be uniform throughout the United
States. To this plea the United States de-
INJURED, and upon hearing of the demurrer
the District Court gave judgment of for
fixture for the government. This judgment
the claimant removed into the Supreme
Court by a writ OF error.
OTHER CASES SET FOR HEARING.
Chief Justice Fuller to-day advanced a
number of cases involving the relation be-
tween the United States and Porto Rico
SO as to be heard with the De Lima case,
in which this case is at issue. The De
Lima case is set for JAN. Z and will b
argued by former Secretary Carlisle. 1t
was at his Instance that three of the cases
were to-day advanced. Two of the cases
so advanced are in the name of Dooley,
Smith q Co., and both come from the
Circuit Court for the southern district of
New York. In one case the action rs
brought to recover money eXacted from
them at Porto Rico as customs duties upon
merchandise taken from New York TO
Porto Rico before the date of the ratin-
cation of the Paris treaty and the date OF
the enactment of the Porto Rican
government act: In the other
case the duties were collected
after the Porto Rican law was enacted.
A third case is that Of Carlos Armstrong.
coming from the Court of Claims. and
also involving the same general question.
and still another, that of Samuel b.
Downs. In the last named case, Frederick
Coudert, jr., appears as counsel.
1t was 800 o'clock when the Goetz case
was called this afternoon. Attorney Gen.
eral Griggs was present in behalf of the
government and a number of prominent
attorneys, including Secretary Carlisle,
were interested listeners. Edward c. Per-
Porto Rico case, and that involving the
status of the Philippines, be combined. The
attorney general assented to this. and in
was arranged that each sid. should have
five hours.
The opening argument in behalf of
Goetz was then begun by Everett Brown,
of counsel for appellant. He rehearsed the
main features as TO the cession of Porto
Rico. with the circumstance of the enact
ment of the tariff law of 1897 and the i'm
position of the cuties on the goods OF
Goetz, The main contentious, he said,
were that Porto Rico was not a foreign
cnr1rfrvn as cOnIaplDll'-d DV the fari. .n
and that Porto Rico was within the United
States SO that an imDoSt duty against
goods OF Porto Rico would be in violation
of the constitutional provision that "aIl
duties, impostS and excuses snail bc uni
torn throughout the United States
NJ. Brown remarked tl.at the counsel
who haG opposed this view had maintained
that forte Rico was a part % the United
States only in a Pickwickial sense. Il YVES
conceded, he said, that 1.-The people of the
United States constituted an absolute SOW
ereign nation; that the power TO declare
and carry on war has been delegated by
the people to its constitutional agents, and
that this includes the power To occupy
foreign territory and 10 govern it and its
inhabitants while it remains foreign terri
tory, subject only to the rules and usages
of civilized warfare under international
laws" 1t was also conceded, Mr.. Brown
said. that the people had delegated the
power TO add permanent acquisitions to its
territory. But witt these concessions. Mr..
Brown declared, the people had established
hit ntA0I 10 la
transcribed. This case was something
more than one of ex-proprio vigore. 1t
went to the extent of denying the right OF
any branch of the government 10 trans
cend the limitations laid down by the Con-
stitution. Mr.. Brown closed his brief in
troductory presentation of the case by re
ferring To its momentous character, which
he and his colleagues regarded as the most
profoundly important that they ever had
been called upon TO present.
PERKINS, ARGUMENT.
Mr.. Perkins followed. taking up more
particularly the constitutional phases of
the case. He maintained that the Con-
stitution was in effect a power of attorney
and said the question was as TO what
were those powers. The prosecution OF the
wal to Porto Rico or elsewhere. or TO
the acquisition on this or that place, were
all acts which must be brought within
the powers of the Constitution. The met
aphor as TO the Constitution following the
flag Mr.. Perkins regarded as equivalent TO
saying that a mans shadow followed
him. The first constitutional point urged
by Mr.. Perkins was that "the claim OF
unlimited power in new territories is op-
posed TO our entire theory of constitu-
tional government"
4 large number of cases were cited TO
show the attitude OF the United States
Supreme Court on analogous issues in
the past An unbroken line of DECISIONS,
1t was maintained. established that the
prohibftory clauses OF the Constitution ap-
ply In the government OF the territory OF