The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1900-12-17
STATUS OF THE COLONIES
The Supreme Court to Define Their
Mlation to the States.
The Quesfion of Whether the Consti-
tuition Follows the Flag to He
Passed tipon by the Tribunal in the
Form of Customs Cases Involving
Porto Rico and the Philippines.

The Supreme Court calendar for toda
contains the first two cases on its docko
which involve settlement by judlcia
declaration OF the question docs the Con
stitution of necessity and of its own vigo
and force follow the nag?" and the ar
sument is expected to begin upon then
before the days session of the court !.
over. They include the status of Porte
Rico and the Philippines. one case origi
mating. so to speak, in the former islant
and the other in the Eastern Archipelago
The first case is that of John II. Goetze
who claims restoration of customs dues
collected in New York on an invoice Of
tobacco shipped from Porto Rico. The
Department of Justice furnishes the fol
lowing statement of the facts in the case:
'on June 6, 1899, Goe,ze imported from
| Porto Rico into the port of New York a
| quantity of leaf or filler tobacco, upon
| which duty was assessed at the rate OF
30 cents per pound as filler tobacco not
especially provided for. in accordance
with the provisions of paragraph 213 OF
the tariff act of 1897 commonly known as
the 'Dingley act
The importer protested. claiming that
the merchandise was not subject to duty.
because Porto Rico at the time of the I'M
portation was rot foreign country, and
because, therefore, the imposition of du-
ties on goods brought from a place within
the territory Of the United States is not
lawful and valid under the Constitution
The Board of General Appraisers sus-
tanned the assessment of duty imposed by
the collector upon the merchandise in
question and thereupon the importer ap-
pca'ed to the United States Circuit Court
Tor the Southern District of New York, by
which court the decision was affirmed in
an opinion rendered by Judge Townsend
From the judgment of he Circuit Court an
appeal was taken.
In the appeal it is acntended that:
Porto Rico was partially occupied by
the war forces of the United States dur
ing the months OF July and August. 1888.
By the protocol of August ~. 1898. between
the United States aEd Spain. Spain agreed
to cede Porto Rico to the United States
and Immediately evacuate. The evacua-
tion was effected and full possession of
the island assumed by the United States
prior to January ]. 1899. From that date
until May 1. 199e Porto Rico was occu-
pied and governed by the military forces
OF the United States under command of
the President. as conquered territory un-
der the law OF belligerent right.
The Treaty Of Paris made in pursu-
ance of the protocol. was signed Decem-
ber 10, 1885, ratified by the Senate Feb
ruary 6, 1898, and the notifications ex-
changed April II, 1899. so that the i'm
portation in this case was subsequent to
the ratification of the treaty but prior to
the establishment of civil government in
the island under the act of Congress.
''It does not appear that the importers
are citizens of the United States or of
Porto Rico. nor whether or not the i'm
ported tobacco was the product OF Porto
Rico" "a
The other case is of more contempora-
neous human interest and of possibly
more Importance ssas-the Goetze case may
go off on Question Of jurisdiction. but
il this one it seems that the court must
squarely say~whether or not the customs
laws of the United States extend to the
Philippines. The case is entitled: "Fodr-
teen diamond rings, Emil J. Pepke. naim
ant plaintiff in error, vs. the United
States"
Pepke's attorney is Charles H. Aldricf.
of Chicago, formerly Solicitor General
under the Harrison Administration. The
attorneys statement of facts in the case
says:
Emil J. Pepke the claimant 10 the
property in controversy and plaintiff in
error, was born in the United States, and
is citizen thereof and of the State OF
North Dakota. He enlisted on the 2Sth
day of April. 1898, in Company I. of the
First Regiment of North Dakota Tolun-
teer Infantry, and was with said regiment
assigned 20 duty in the Island of Luzon. i
He continued in such military service
until his regiment was ordered to San
Francisco on the 31st OF July, 1899. He
was discharged with his regiment Septem- |
ber %, 1883, at Camp Presidio. California. |
He was wounded at the battle Of Tobac |
Luzon, and his discharge is cum laude.'
While serving as n soldier IN Luzon |
and subsequent to the Treaty OF Peace |
between the United States and the King |
dom of Spain and the exchange Of rati- |
ncations thereof he purchased eleven dia-
mond rings and made loans upon three |
others to fellow soldiers. which were sub |
sequently released to him. which four |
teen rings he brought with him from |
Luzon. The plea AYERS that he returned |
with his regiment upon n United States |
vessel; that upon his discharge |
he proceeded to North Dakota and from |
there to Chicago, Ill. where the fourteen !
rings were seized by customs officer as |
having been unlawfully brought into the |
United States.
An information was flied by the Dis |
trict Attorney. and the court below held |
insufficient a plea filed disclosing these
facts. and claiming that the property was
not subject to customs duties under the
Constitution Of the United States, the
amant refusing to answer further the
urt decreed the forfeiture and sale OF
property in question. From this ac-
of the court this writ of errcr Is /
secuted"
eat interest has been manifested in
case by the Government law officers,
say that the matters at issue have
cen equaled in Importance since the
Scott case Was decided in 1856. At
General Griggs will make the ar
.. before the court on behalf OF the
States, and has personally prepared
ger part Of the exhaustive brief
he case for the Government