Waterbury Democrat., 1900-12-17
SUP REME COURT
s To-Day Hearing Arguments
 on Our New Possessions.
CONSTITUTION AND THE FLAG.

The Decision of the Court Is AnX- iously Awaited by Anti-Imperialists And Administration Supporters.
 Washington, Dec 11.-In the United States supreme court to-day argument was begun in two cases. the decision of which is expected to fix the status of Porto Rico and the Philippine Is- lands and other insular posse ssions ac- quired through the war with Spain with respect to the United States prop CT, to say whether their people are cit fZenS, and 10 indicate whether the con- Stitution follows the flag One of the cases is that of John H. EOetze. who in June. 1899. imported from Porto Rico a quantity of leaf to- hacco into the Cnfted States through the port Of New York and protested against the assessment of duty on the importation, claiming that the tobac- co was not subject 10 duty because Porto Rico ar the time of the impor- tation was not q foreign country and because, therefore, the imposition cf duties on goods brought from a place within the territory of the United States into port of the United States is not lawful and valid under the con- stitution.
 The collector of the port and the board of general appraisers both ruled against him, as did the United States circuit court for the southern district of New York when GoctZe took the case before that tribunal! From the opinion of that court the importer ap- pealed to the United States supreme court.
 The other case is known as the Fourteen diamond ring case.." In that suit the claimant is one Manuel Pephe. who served as q soldier of the United States in Luzon. in the Philip pines. While there he purchased or acquired the rings in que StiOn and brought them into the United States without paying duty upon them. some time in the year 1899. between July 31 and September ?. The rings were seized on May IS, 1900. at Chicago, by United States customs officer as mer- chandise liable to duty. which should have been invoked. and was fraudu- lently imported and brought into the United States contrary to law An in- formation for the forfeiture of the rings was filed on behalf of the gov ernment June 1, 1900. to which the claimant pleaded. setting up that at the time he acquired the property Luzon was a part of the territory of the Unit ed States and that the seizure was con- trary to the claimants right as citi- zen of the United States under the con- stitution. and particularly under sec tiCn 2 article ". thereof. and he in sisted that under article T.. section g. congress is required to see that all tax es and duties shall be uniform through out the United States. To this plea the United States demurred. and upon hearing of the demurrer. the district court gave judement of forfeiture for the government. This judgment. the claimant removed into the supreme court by q writ of error.
 Washington, Dec 11.-In DrCSenting z the government side of the controver- Sy, AttOrney-Ge GriggS first stat ed the two cases upon which the pro ceeding is based. This was followed by general explanation and summing up of the governments position, after which came the citation of innumera- ble authorities. under appropriate headings. with pertinent running con- lnent upon them. The attorney-gener al contended that the United States has the power to acquire territory that. having acquired it. it has the right to govern it: that administrative construction congressional action and judicial precedent affirm that every port in a ceded country is properly re- garGed as foreign until laws are eX- tended by congress to the new posses sionS: that the clause of the constitu ton of the United States declaring du ties uniform throughout the United States is not applicable to new posses ,IH net extend of its own force over ac quired territory.
 In his general contention on behalf Of the United States. MT Griggs argued that his opponents were wrong from both q legal and Q constitutional point of view. Referring to the legal aspect of the case. he asserted that the Ding ley act applied to merchandise import ed from Porto Rico and the Philip pines after their cession 10 the TT-
 States the same as it did before. and that in view of the fact that the tariff laws are ill rem there is no principal of justice, much less of constitutional restriction. which forbids congress from taxing in this way the merchan disc of outlying possessions the United States when brought into the ports of the Union.
 He laid dcwn as established the tive following propositions:
 l. That the tariff act of 1897 was intended by congress to classify as for cign all countries not a part or be longing to the United States at the time of it's passage, and the subsequent cession of the Spanish islands to the United States did not operate to admit imports from those islands free of du ty. under that law:
 2 That the tariff act so construed and enforced violates no constitutiona rule of uniformity.
 Taking up the constitutional ques ,tion. the attorneys declared that there was no doubt that it was the intention of the Paris treaty no1 10 make the ceded islands part o1 the United States. and also that il was intended not to make the inhabi tanfs of these islands citiZehs.' The only thing that could justify declara ffon that the treaty is invalid would bt that 1t violates the constitution of tho