Arizona republican., 1900-12-18
PORTO RICO'S STATUS
Its Relations to This Country
 About to Be Determined.
The Hearing of Two Cases Involving Disputed Points Was Begun in the United States Supreme Court Yesterday.

Washington, Dec 17.-In the United States supreme court this morning arg ument in the celebrated cases involv- ing the relations of Porto Rico and the Philippines toward the United States was begun in the presence of a throng of distinguished lawyers, jur- ists and other interested persons that completely filled the historic little chamber in the senate wing of the cap itol The eases, involving as they do the confusing problems of constitu- tional and international law raised by ! the cession of the Philippines and Porto Rico by Spain, are considered the most important that have come be- fore the highest tribunal in recent years. There are two cases on the docket, one with reference to Porto Rico and the other affecting the Philippines, but both involving the same issues. The first case is that of John H. Goetz & Co.,, importers, of New York, who were forced to pay duty under the tariff act of 1897, on merchandise shipped from Arecibo, Porto Rico, May 27, 1899. This ship ment occurred before the ratification of the Spanish-American treaty and before the law for the government of Porto Rico had been enacted. The ap- praisers upheld the collector of the port of New York in assessing a tariff duty upon the goods. The United States circuit court of the southern district of New York confirmed the de- cision of the board of appraisers and the case comes to the supreme court on appeal.
 The importers base their claim to return of the duties collected by the collector upon two propositions of law, one depending upon the tariff and the other upon the constitution, as follows: That Porto Rico. when the goods were brought thence to New York, was not a foreign country so that they were not in purview of the tariff act.
 "That Porto Rico at that time was within the United States; so, that, if the tariff act were to be construed as imposing a tax upon merchandise, the imposition violated the publication of article l of the constitution, that All duties. iTposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the Uni1ed States"
 The board Of appraisers, whose views were upheld by the lower courts, held that while Porto Rico was unques- tionably a part of the United States in the sense that it was owned by this government and was completely under it's sovereignty" it was foreign to the United States for fiscal or tariff pur- poses" because it had not "been brought under the domain of the na- ton by special legislative action by congress"
 The second case is known as -Four teen diamond rings, Emil J. Pepke. claimant. vs the United States" Pep ke was a soldier in the First North Dakota volunteers. After the ratified ton of the Paris treaty he purchased fourteen diamond rings in Luzon. took them to San Francisco and subse- quently to Chicago, where the dia- monGs were seized by the custom off cers under the claim that the Philip pines are foreign territory. and that dutiable goods brought therefrom had not paid the tax under the tariff law The arguments advanced by Peplles attorneys are substantially the same as those of the lawyers in the case of the New York importers with regard to Porto Rico. It is unnecessary to point cut that the decision of the supreme court in these two cases will be of the greatest importance and far-reach- ing in it's effect amounting practically to a decision of the question as to whether the constitution follows the flag.