The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-11-13
THE PORTO RICAN Cases
Attorney General Asks Delay on
Test Customs Suit.
A Motion in the Supreme Court of
the United States to Continue to
january Cause Set for Hearing
Ycstcrday-Third Monday Of De-
crmber Named for Arguments.

ccmber Named for Arguments.
The Supreme Court yesterday afternoon
| decided to hear argument in case No. $40,
being that of John H. Goeze & Co.. i'm
porters, of New York. against the United
States. and case No. i1e, being styled
Fourteen Diamond Rings against the
United States, on December II.
The case OF Goeze Co. is a suit
against the legality of the collection OF
tariff duties on goods shipped from Porto
Rico to New York between the time of
tween the United States and Spain and
the approval Of the act for the government
of Porto Rico. Argument in this case was
get for today, and in the other case it was
! set for January Z. Because of the cog
nate questions involved in these two cases
the first was postponed and the second id
vanced to December II.
In the Supreme Court yesterday, Attor-
ney General Griggs offered motion that
the Goeze case be postponed until January
| Z, to the end that it might be grouped
with the Diamond case and other cases in
volving similar questions which are now
| pending in circuit courts OF the United
| States. and which ii was the wish of the
, counsel for plaintiffs and of the Depart
ment of Justice. he said. to so advance in
those courts that they might come to the
Supreme Court by the date named. Mr..
! Griggs said that he offered the motion not
because the Government was not ready to
proceed to argument. should the court so
rule, but merely TO subserve the cnnven-
fence of the Government Of the United
States, the plaintiffs being agreeable, he
| thought to the proposition. He explained
| briefly tie questions involved in the Goeze
and the Diamond cases, the first named
dealing with the legality Of customs dues
levied OH merchandise from Porto Rico and
the last-named case dealing with the lc
j! gality of dues levied on goods brought into
| the United States from the Philippines.
Edward C. Perkins. of counsel for Goeze
| {; Co.. contended that Inconvenience would
| be caused to counsel in his case by a
| postponement until January Z, and he ask
| ed that the case might come on to hear
! ing on December 8. John G. Carlisle, who
was referred to by Attorney General
Griggs as counsel in several of the cases
| pending in the circuit courts, could give
| no assurance to the Supreme Court that
these cases would be ready for argument
before that tribunal on January T.
| After conference between the justices,
| the Chief Justice announced that the
| GeoZe and the Diamond cases would be
reassigned on the calendar and that ar
gument might be heard on December II.
| The Goeze case is an appeal from a de-
| cision of the Circuit Court of the United
| States fer the southern district of New
| York affirming a decision of the Board
| Of United General Appraisers, which
overruled the appellants protest and af-
frmei the decision of the Collector of tn,
! port of New York, assessing a duty undsr
| the tariff act of 1897 upon merchandise
| shipped from the port of Arecibo. in the
| Island of Porto Rico. on May 81, 1899, and
| brought into the port Of New York on
| June 6, 1889.
The appellants claim to Il return of the
! payment exacted from him by the Col
| lecto- rests upon two propositions of law.
one depending upon the Tarif act and the
| other upon the Constitution. They are:
Il. That Porto Rico. when the apel-
| lart's goods were brought thence to New
| York was not a foreign country so that
| they were not within the Durview Of the
| Tariff act.
80. That Porto Rico. at that time. was
within she United States. SO that II the
| tariff We're to be construed as imposing
| tax upon merchandise so circums anced
the imposition violated the provision of
| Section S of Article / of the Constitution
| that all duties. impcsts and excuses
| shall be uniform throughout the United
States.
The Board OF Appraisers held that
while Porto Rico was unquestionably a
mar, of tho United States in the sense
:, .,a.- o,,,,,od b,, ,hic corornmen, and NO.,
~ va, 49, ',ti' " '" vs.. . :, an ""'
eoihpieleis uhue, 10 s.s.Lt NY II was
o ~ 's $50. 80 Va. -. :. az ..,i vi
,aiiu pun poseo' nau no' zen
Drought uiueT 'he uohiaih oi tie nation
by Special legislative actlon py congress.
They considered that it followed from this
that taxes ought 10 be collected under the
authority oil an act OF Congress without
| regard TO the constitutional prescription
of uniformity, and that such Z question
was essentially different from that which
would have been presented II Congress
had undertaken Ito pass laws for the gov
eminent OF this newly acquired territory.
and had passed n Tariff act extending over
the island. with rates of duty different
from those imposed by the general tariff
laws applicable to other parts of the
country" and upon the cOnstitutionalIty
of such action on the part of Congress
they expressly declined TO pass
This case strikes at the legalil,, Of the
existing tariff levied upon products from
that island. and seeks 10 affirm the doctrine
that Porto Rico is by cession an integral
portion of the United States
In every case affecting Porto Rico so far
brought the courts have avoided an opin-
ion on the essential question involved. but
LAWYERS of high standing believe that in
the present action tine vital question car
not be set aside.
One OF the reasons il is said. why the
Attorney General moved for p0stponement
| until January l. is that such postponement
would carry the case along until Congress
shall have been in session for month