The Savannah morning news. (Savannah, Ga.) 1900-current, 1900-12-18
STATUS OF COLONIES
,NpoRrANT QUESTION TAKEN UP
ny SUPREME COURT.
CONSTITUTION AND THE FLAG.
,,sEs INVOLVE IMPOSITION or
CUSTOMS DUTIES.

II, one case the Defendant BrouEht
Tobacco From Porto Rico, aud In
Another Diamond Rings Were
Wrought From ManiIa-The Goods
were seized. hut Their Owners
claim the HIEht 90 Bring Them In
without Paying Duty.
Wellington. Dec. i7-ln tho United
safe. supreme Court to-day argument
ot. begun IN two casc-. the decision o.
winch Is expected 20 Tx the status Of
porto Rico and the Philippine Islands and
.-,rar insular possessions acquired through
.s. war with Spain with respect to the
rrItod States proper. TO say whether
.le.r people are citizens. and TO indicate
whether the constitution follows the flag
ono o. the cases f. that OF John II
37etze. who lu June 1889. imported from
Porto Rico a quantity Of leaf tobacco into
Oh. United Ssates through tho port OF
Sew York and protested against the az
..s-mcnt Of duty on the importation,
-.tmng that the tobacco was not sub
CO.'S 10 duty because Porto Rico a. tho
time Of importation was not a foreign
country. and because therefore the inn
.-sition 81 duties on goods brought from
place within the territory OF the United
states into a port Of the United States
f. ga, lawful and valid under the consti-
.4I5n"
The collector of the port and tho board
20, general appraisers both ruled against
am. as did the United s ates Circuit
court for the Southern district OF New
York
The other case is known as the four
.ssu-diamond-rlng case.
The claimant Manuel Repke a United
states soldier in the Philippines. acquired
,he rings in question and brought them
into che United States without paying
al,y upon them. some time In the year
.se. between July 81 and Sept o. The
rings were seized on May is 1902 at Chi
ago by a United States customs -
H. merchandise liable 10 duty. which
SHOULD have been invoiged. and was
.auIuicnuy imported. The claimant con-
tends that "a the time he acquired the
property Luzon was a part Of the terri
tory OK the United States. and that the
seizure was contrary TO the claimants
r.&ht as citizen. particularly under Sec-
lion 3 Artile ". OF the constitution. and
o. Insisted THAI under Artile T. Section S.
congress requires uniformity OF all taxes
ana duties throughout the United States.
The District Court gave judgment Of for
f.ltare for the government and the case
came here on a writ Of error.
The Argument Heard.
When the cases were called to-day they
were combined by mutual consent OF
counsel and each side was given hve
hours for argument. Everit Brown. coun-
-e for appellant. made the FIRST argu-
msut.
Mr Brown declared that the people had
e.t4b,ished certain constitutional limits
reger TO be transcribed This case was
-Umeth.ng more than one Or eX-propriO
WHO'RE. 81 denied the right Of any branch
~ the government 70 transcend che limi-
,Atious laid down by the constitution.
t5Iward e. Perkins Of counsel for
Goethe maintained that the constitution
was in effect a power Of attorney. The
prosecution OF the war 20 Porto Rico or
elsewhere. or 60 the acquisition OF this
or that place. We're all acts which must
be- brought within the powers Of the con-
-titution. The constitution following the
TO saying that "a mans shadow followed
hm
The claim OF unlimited power In new
torF,torlcs" he said. as opposed 60 our
entire theory OF constitutional govern
ment
The treaty OF Paris is not open 10 che
obstruction that Il provides for the gov
eruing Of Porto Rico without regard 20
-onstituti onal limitations and a. a coun-
cry foreign 20 the United States.
n the tariff act imposes a duty or tax
upon goods brought from Porto Rico 20
place elsewhere IN tine United States al
ter the annexation. the imposition e VOID
as being IN conflict with an express pro-
vision 81 the constitution.
when the treaty OF Paris took effect.
Porto Rico ceased 10 be "A foreign eoun-
try within the meaning Of those words
as used in the tariff act"
-e--s-s--------