The Forrest City times., 1900-12-21
STATUS OF TRE |SLlN0S.
Argument Begun in Two Cases a the Supr sme Court of the
 U.ited States.
THE DECISION WILL BE OF INTEREST.
On It wiII Rest the status of Our Ipsuinr Possessions. Acquired Through the nar with spain, With Reference to the United states of America.

States of America.
 Washington. Dec 19.-In the United States supreme court argument is tn progress in two cases, the decision of which is expected to fix the status of Porto Rico and the Philippine islands and other insular possessions acquired through the war with Spain with re- spect to the United States proper. to say whether the people are citi- xens, and to indicate whether the con Etitution follows the flag.
 Case of John n. Goetz.
 One of the cases, that of John II. Goetz. who. in June. 1899. imported from Porto Rico quantity of leaf tobacco into the United States through the port of New York. and protested against the assessment of duty on the importation. claiming that the tobacco was not subject to duty because Porto Rico. at the time of the importation, was not d for eign country. and because, therefore. the imposition of duties on goods brought from place within a ter ritory of the United States into a part of the United States is not lawful and valid under the constitu- tion."
 The collector of the port and board of general appraisers both ruled against him. as did the United States circuit court for the southern district nf +I case before that tribunal. From the opinion of that court the importer appealed to the United States supreme court
 "Fourteen Diamond Ring Case."
 The other case is known as the Fourteen Diamond Ring case In that suit the claimant is one Manuel Papke, who served as a soldier of the United States in Luzon, in the Phil ippines. While there he purchased or acquired the rings in question and brought them into the United States without paying duty upon them, some time in the year 1899, between July 3l and September 25. The rings were seized on May IS. 1900. at Chicago. by United States customs officer. as merchandise liable to duty. which should have been invoiced. and was fraudulently imported and brought into the United States contrary to law. An information for the forfeit ure of the rings was filed on behalf of the government June 19. 1900, to which the claimant pleaded, setting up that al the time he acquired the property Luzon was a part of the ter ritory of the United States. and that the seizure was contrary to the claim ants rights as a citizen of the Unit ed States under the constitution. and particularly under Section 2.Article lN. thereof, and he insisted that under Article l., Section $. congress is re- quired to see that all taxes and du- ties shall be uniform throughout the United States
 To this plea the United States de- murred, and upon hearing of the de- mnrrer, the district court gove judg- ment of forfeiture for the govern ment. This judgment the claimant re- moved into the supreme court by a writ of erro
 Attorney Generals Contention.
 The attorney general conrended that the United States has the power 10 acquire territory: that. having ac- quired it, it has the right to govern IL; that administrative construction. congressional action and judicial pre- cedent affirm that every port in a ceded country k properly regarded as foreign until laws are extended by congress to the new possessions: that the clause of the constitution of the United States, declaring duties uni form throughout the United States is not applicable 10 rev possessions. and that the constitution does not extend of its own force over acquired terri tory.
 Legal Aspect of the Case.
 Referring to the legal aspect of the case, he asserted that the DingIev act applied to merchandise imported from Porto Rico and the Philippines after their cession to the United States. the same as 1t did before. and that in view of the fact that the tariff laws are ad interim, there is no principle of justice, much less of constitutional restriction which forbids congress from taxing in this way the mer- ehandise of outlying possessions of the United States when brought into the ports If the union.
 The Constitutional Question.
 Taking ID the constitutional oues. fion the attorney general declared that there was no doubt that it was the intention of the Paris treaty mol to make he eeded islands part ot the United States and also that it was intended not to make the inhabitants of those islands citizens.