Twice-a-week plain dealer. (Cresco, Howard County, Iowa) 1895-1913, 1900-12-25

Supreme Court Hears Argument
in Imports nt Cases.
ATTORNEY CENERALC YES HIS VIEWS


Defends the Governments Position in
Suits Which Involve the states
of Porto Rico aud philip
pine Islands.
Washington. Dec. 19.-Arguments in
the Porto philippines cases, in
volying the status of those countries to
the United States, were resumed in the
United States supreme court Tuesday.
The widespread interest in the cases
was shown by large attendance OF
prominent members of the bar and by
crowd of spectators which filled the
public area and.-ortrilowed into the
corridor. Senators and representa-
-tiSves in congress who had taken part
in the Porto Rico-Philippine legislation
dropped in as the arguments proceed
ed and gave attentive ear to the pro-
ceedings. Prior to the opening of the
court the counsel conferred and ar
ranged general plan of procedure,
by which Edward G.. Perkins. senior
counsel in the Porto Rico case. would
conclude his argument Tuesday, being
followed by Lawrence Harmon. coun-
sci in the Philippines case. The APP
pellants would then give way TO Attor-
ney General Griggs for the presentation
of the case in behalf of the govern
ment. This. it was expected, would
continue until Wednesday, when
Charles II. Aldrich, former solicitor
general. and senior counsel in the
Philippines case, will close in behalf
of the appellants.
Argument by Mr.. Grisss.
Mr.. Griggs' plea was based upon brief
of 200 pages, the greater part of which is
devoted to presenting the argument of the
United States, while the remaining portion
is in the shape of an appendix giving the
text of the peace treaty between the United
Staes and Spain, and also the text of other
treaties supposed to bear upon the question
In presenting the governments side OF
the controversy the attorney general first
stated the two cases upon Which the pro-
ceeding is based. This was followed by a
general explanation and summing up OF
the governments position. after which
came the citation of nnumerable authors
ties under appropriate headings. with per-
tinent running comment upon them. me
attorney general commended that the United
States has the power TO acquire territory;
| that having acquired it, IL has the right to
govern it; that administrative construc-
| ton, congressional action and judicial pre-
| cedent affirm that every port In ceded
| country is properly regarded as foreign IN
| til laws are extended by congress to the
new possessions; that the clause OF the
constitution OF the United States declaring
duties uniform throughout the United
States is not applicable tonew possessions.
and that the constitution does not extend
of its own force over acquired territory.
Wrong from TWO Points of View.
In his general contention on behalf of the
United States, Mr.. Griggs argued that his
opponents were wrong tIom both legal
and constitutional. point OF view, Refer.
ring to the legal aspect Of the case. he as
serted that the DiEgley act applied to MGR
char.dise imported from Porto Rico and the
Philippines after their cession to the
United States TIE same as 1t did before and
that in view of the fact that tariff laws are
in rem there is no principle of justice, much
less of constitutional restricton, which
forbds congress from taxing in this way
the merchandise of outlying possessions of
the United States when brought into the
ports of the union.
Two Established Propositions.
He laid down as established the two fol-
lowing propositions:
l. That the tariff act of 1897 was intended
by congress to classify as foreign all coun-
tries not part of or belonging to the
United States at the time of it's passage.
and the subsequent cession of the Spanish
| islands to the United States did not oper-
ate to admit imports from those Islands
\ free of duty, under that law. 2. That the
| tariff act so construed and enforced violates
no constitutional rule of uniformity.
4 Right to Acquire ana Govern.
Mr.. Griggs then entered upon the presen
| u - I'M ut He tapG
ed that the right of the United States to &C
auire territory had been asserted in thu
declaration of ependence, and said tina
such acquisition could be made either by
conquest, by treaty, by annexation or b,
| discovery. He quoted number of suprem,
court decisions in support of this conten
ton. A great deal OF attention was givel
TO the right to govern territory when once
| acquired, and innumerabe authorities wer
adduced in support Of this position. anon:
others the decision of the supreme court il
the Mormon church case, in which the coui
said that st would be absurd to hold tina
the United States has power to acquire ter
ritory and no power to govern it when &C
CURED"
He asserted that 1.-The treaty making pow
er of the government has exercised tn
right to deal with the status of the inhabit
J ants of coded territory in every treaty Q
cession from 1903 TO 1885" The status fxeC
he said, has not been uniform. but exceed
ingly varying. He then proceeded to argu
/, that this practice Is entirely at Varianc
, with the doctrine that 1.-The constitutio
follows the flag and that when territory
ceded to the United States the inhabitant
become Immediately proprio vigore citizen
of the United States. IF that doctrine b
true" he said. every treaty that ha
brought us new lands and new inhabitant
has violated in this respect the principle
. Of the constitution. 1t convicts of erro
. and usurpation Thomas jefferson, Jane
Madison, James Monroe. James X. Poll
, Franklin Pierce. Andrew johnson. the
cabinets and the senates that ratified the
treaties
AS to tuniform Duties" Clnuse.
Mr.. Grggs went al length into the clai
that the constitutional clause which pr,
: vides that duties, imposts and excise
shall be uniform throughout the Unite
States" prohibits imposition of duties
the cases before the court.
THAT clause" he said. does not app
to nor govern these cases. because the ter
United States as there used, near on
! the territory comprised within the sever
| states of the union, and was intended onl
for their benefit and protection, and n,
for the benefit or protection of outside te
ritory belonging to the nation; in the la
ter sense duties on imports from these ii
lands We're uniform throughout the Unite
States. because they are uniformity In
posed a every port in the United States.
I. that there is no preference given to Il