Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1900-12-19
STATUS OF THE ISLANDS
ACQUIRED FROM SPAIN.
ARGUMENTS IN TWO CASES BEFORE
THE UNITED STATES ST.
PREME COURT.
ATTORNEY GENERAL GRIGGS
CONTENDS THAT THE CoNsTITU4
TION DOES NOT FOLLOW
THE FLAG.

WASHINGTON. Dec. 1s.-In the
United States Supreme Court argument
was continued in two cases. the de-
cision of which is expected to fix the
status of Porto Rico and the Philip
pine Islands and other insular possess
sions acquired through the 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 H.
Goethe, who in June, 1899, imported
from Porto Rico. quantity of leaf to-
bacco into the United States through
the port of New York and protested
against the assessment OF duty on the
importation, claiming that the to-
bacco was not subject to duty because
Porto Rico at the time OF the impor-
tation was not foreign country; aud
because, therefore, the imposition OK
duties on goods brought from a place
States is not lawful and valid under
the constitution The collector OF the
port and the board OF general APP
praisers both ruled against him, as
did the United States Circuit Court
for the Southern district OF New York
when Goetze 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 this suit
the claimant is Manuel Pepke. who
served as a soldier OF the United
States in Luzon in the Philippines.
While there he acquired the rings ia
question and brought them into the
United States without paying duty
upon them, sometime in 1899. between
July Slst and September 18th. The
rings were seized on May Is. 1900. at
Chicago by a United States customs
officer as merchandise liable 70 duty
which should have been inyoiced. and
was fraudulentiy imported and brought
| into the United States contrary 10 law.
An information for the forfeiture -ok
| the rings was flied on behalf OF tho
| government, June |, 1900. TO which the
claimant pleaaed setting up that at
the time he acquired the property.
Luzon was part OF the United States.
and that the seizure was contrary to
/ the constitution. and particularly un-
der section ?. article 4. thereof. and no
insisted that under article /. section S.
Congress is required TO see that all
taxes and duties shall be uniform
| throughout the United States. TO thla
y.Hg . a.
upon hearing of demurrer, the dis
trict court gave judgment of forfeit
ure for the government. This judg-
| ment the claimant removed into the
Supreme Court by writ OF error.
In presenting the governments side
of the controversy Attorney General
Griggs first stated the two cases upon
which the proceeding is based. This
was followed by general explanation
and summing up OF the governments
position. after which came the citation
Of innumerabie authorities with perth
nent running comment upon them. The
attorney general contended that the
United States has the power to acquire
territory; that having acquired it, ia
has the right to govern it: that admin
istratiye construction. Congressional
I
that every port in coded country Ii
properly regarded as foreign until the
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 ia
new possessions. and that the consti-
tuition does not extend Of it's own forea
over acquired territory.
In his general contention Mr.. Grigga
argued that his opponents were wrong
from both legal and a constitutional
point Of view Referring 20 the legal
aspect Of the case. be asserted that
the Dingley act applied to merchant
disc imported from Porto Rico aud
the Philippines after their cession To
the United States the same as ii cid
before. and that there Is no principle
of justice. much less Of constitutional
restriction. which forbids Congress
from taxing in this way the merchan-
disc OF outlying possessions OF the
United States when brought into tna
ports Of the Union.
He laid down as established the TIVE
following propositions:
On That the tarin act OF 1897 was
intended by Congress 10 classify as
foreign all countries not a part OF or
belonging to the United States at the
time Of it's passage. and the subsequent
session OF the Spanish islands TO the
United States did not operate 10 adj
NIT imports from those islands free
Of duty. under that law; (2J that the
tariff act 80 construed and enforced
violates no constitutional rule or uni
formity.
Taking up the constitutional ques-
tion. the attorney general declared
that there vas no doubt that II was
the intention Of the Paris treaty not
to make the coded islands as a part
of the United States, and also that u
was intended not 20 make the inhahd-
tants Of those islands citizens. The
only thing that could justify declara-
ton that the treaty is invalid would be
that il violates the constitution OF the
United States.
He said II was not contended that
Congress had absolute power over the
lives and properly " citizens. *There
Is here," he went on, no proposition
TO confscate or DESTROY the possesslbIa
quality OF the plaintiffs merchandise.
It is a mere demand of right TO tax
il at the custom house The right to