New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1900-02-23
Puerto RICo's STATUS IN COURT.

A iudicial determination of the question
whether or not the Constitution and laws Of the
United States extend ex proprio vigore TO new
territory is on all accounts to be welcomed. We
are glad. therefore, that suits are being pushed
70 test the legality of the duties levied on goods
brought from Puerto Rico in advance of any ac-
ton by Congress defining the status of that
island and regulating its commercial relations.
As Puerto Rico is still ruled under Executive
authority. the case now presented is not exactly
the same as that which would come before the
Supreme Court after the passage of laws estab-
fishing q permanent civil government. The
Court might hold that when Congress had once
undertaken TO legislate the subject it was
bound 10 follow the same constitutional rule as
in dealing with the States. That is the conten-
ton of people who are trying to force our new
possessions upon the road TO Statehood, but
legislation concerning Louisiana and Florida
and Supreme Court decisions uphOlding it do not
support any such view. A ruling to that effect
now would not, however, of necessity imply the
extension of the Constitution and general laws
by their own force previous TO Congressional
action The Court has more than once recog-
nized the validity OF acts of ad interim govern
ments which had no warrant in general laws.
On the other hand, decision that no duty could
be levied on goods from Puerto Rico while it
was under temporary military rule, on the
ground of the automatic operation of the Con
stitution, would probably carry with ii a prOhi-
btion OF separate tariff legislation. The mill
tary tariff might, however. be declared void for
some other reason implying no such conclusion.
The case just being brought against Collector
Bidwell involves only the validity of the Ding
ley tariff as applied here to Puerto Rican goods,
not Of the military tariff in force in Puerto
Rico That, we believe. is being put TO the test
tariff as against new territories not yet under
organized civil government might perhaps be
defended even if ii should be decided a sepa-
rate tariff could not be levied in those territories
by Executive power after the ratification of a
treaty of cession. A port in possession is
not a domestic port until so established by
affirmative legislation and against all but do
nestle ports the legal tariff operates. Mr.. But
Ter, the attorney for the complanants in this
action. is quoted as citing both decisions and ad-
ministratiye practice in favor Of abolishing Gus
toms duties against newly acquired territories
Undoubtedly he has precedents of practice such
as California and, believe Alaska. But
Louisiana and Florida. and even Vermont are
precedents for the opposite practice. And as to
the law, If his citation of the decisions concern
ing our occupation of Mexico is a specimen, the
chances are that his clients will pay the duties
my ciSp"te' nc saSn that aitei the MeAlcdH
War duties could not be collected on goods
brought from Mexico long as that country
"was under the control of the United States"
AS a matter of fact, decision of the Supreme
Court just that issue will undoubtedly be one
Of the bulwarks of the Collector in defending
the levy Of duties on goods from a possession
under military rule. An importer sought to
vade duty on goods brought to the United
tates from Tampico while that place was under
american jurisdiction. The Supreme Court In