The Pacific commercial advertiser., 1900-12-27

VNs Lee lt-ln the b
United states Supreme Court today ar
gument was begun In two cases. the
decision Of which IL expected to fix the
status of Porto Rico and the Philip
pine islands and other insular posses
sions acquired through the war with
spain. with respect to the United states
proper; to say whether their people are
citizens and 20 Indicate whether the
constitution follows the nag.
One Of the cases ls that of John II.
Goethe. who In June. 1899. imported
from Porto Rico a quantity Of leaf to-
bacco into the United States through
the port of New York and pro-
tested against the assessment OF duty
on the importation. claiming that the
tobacco was not subject 10 duty be-
Ieaase Porto Rico NJ the time OF inn
portation was not foreign country.
and because. therefore. the imposition
Of duties on goods brought from a
place within the territory OF the Unit
ed States into 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
ICircuit Court for the Southern District
of New York. when Goethe took the
case before that tribunal From the
Iop4uion OF that court the importer ap-
peaied to the United states Supreme
Court.
The other case is known as the four
teen diamond rings case. In that suit
the claimant IL one Manuel Popke. who
served as a soldier Of the United states
: IN Luzon. Philippine Islands While
: there he purchased or acquired the
rings IN question and brought thern "a
the United states without paying duty
on them some time In the year 1899
between July 2ist and September 25th
The rings were seized on NAV s. 1900
: NJ Chicago by United States custom
officer rs merchandise liable TO duty
which should have been invoiced. and
n was frauduIently imported and brough
into the United States contrary 20 law
An Information for the forfeiture o
the rings was filed on behalf Of tn
. Government June I. 1900. 10 which tn
lcieimant pleaded. setting up that at tn
: time he acquired the property LUXOR
was n part Of the territory of tn
J. United states and that the seizure wa
.. contrary 10 the claimants rights as
lcitizen of the United States under tn
!. constitution and particularly unde
I" section 2. article ~. thereof. and he in
y sisted that under article T.. section
:. Congress n required 90 see that n
: taxes and duties shall be uniforr
n tbrourhout the United states. To thi
y plea the United states demurred an
= upon hearing Of the demurrer the Dis
trict Court gave Judgment Of forfeitur
Ito the Government. This Judgmer
~ the claimant removed into the Suprern
Court by a writ Of error.
- Mr.. Grigxs' plea was based upon
brief of 200 pages. the greater part
y. which n devoted 10 presenting the n
,. gument Of the United States. while u
" remaining portion IL IN the shape Of a
- appendix giving the text OF the pea
treaty between the United states ar
y spain and also the text OF other trei
le ties supposed TO bear upon the Que
- tion.
GENERAL PROPOSITIONS.
pa In presenting the Governments ST
er 81 the controversy the Attorney Gene
I'M ,i fi.st stated the two first cases up'
~ which the proceeding is based. This WI
n. followed by "A general explanation nj
We summing up OF the Governments pos
tlon. after which came the citation
- linnumerable authorities. under apr
priate headings. with pertinent ru
~ ming comment upon them. The Alto
ney General contended that the Unit
states has the power 20 acquire ter
tory, that having acquired II 10 has I
right TO govern 10: that administrati
lr- construction. Congressional action n
,a. judicial precedent affirm that every %
~. in a ceded country is properly regard
aa foreign until laws are extended
- Congress 20 the new possessions. IN
the clause of the Constitution OF
., limited states declaring duties unifoi
"a throughout the United states is not q
pficabie TO new possessions. and tf
lthe Constitution does not extend OF
own force over acquired territory.
In his general contention on behalf
the United states. Mr.. Griggs argu
ef that his opponents were wrong fr'
N, both n legal and constitutional point
~. view. Referring 90 the legal aspect
- - the case he asserted that the Ding
ny Act applied 90 merchandise impor'
dr. frou, porto Rico and the Philippii
BILE after their cession To the United sta
lthe same as ~ did before. and that