Virginian-pilot. (Norfolk, Va.) 1898-1911, 1900-12-18

OF which is expected to fix the status
of Porto Rico and the Philippine Is
lands and other insular possessions
acquired through the war with Spain
with respect to the United States
proper; to say whether their people
are citizens. and to indicate whether
the constitution follows the flag.
ONE OF THE CASES.
One of the cases is that of John H.
Goethe, 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 impor-
tation was not Il foreign country and
because therefore. the Imposition of
duties on goods brought from place
within the territory of the United
States into n port OF the Unted States
is not lawful and valid under the
constitution 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.
THE OTHER CASE.
The other case is known us the
fourteen diamond ring case. The claim
ant. Manuel Repke. Il United States
soldier in the Philippines acquired the
rings In question and brought them
into the United States without paying
duty upon them. some time in the
year 1892 between July 81 and Sept
ernber %.
The rings were seized on May 18th.
1900. at Chicago, by q United States
customs officer as merchadnise liable To
duty, which should have been invoiced,
and was fraudulently imported. The
claimant contends that the time he ac-
quired the property Lu2on was part
of the territory of the United States
and that the seizure was contrary to
the claimants rights as n citizen, par
ticularly under section ,, article w..
OF the Constitution. and he insisted
that under article L. section s, Congress
requires uniformity of all taxes and
duties throughout the United States.
The district court gave Judgment of
forfeiture for the government. and the
THE CASES COMBINED.
When the cases were called today
they We're combined by mutual consent
OF counsel and each side was given five
hours for agreement. Everit Brown.
counsel for appellant. made the first
argument
Mr.. Brown declared that the people
hau established certain constitutional
limits never to be transcribed. This
case was something more than one of
eX proprio vigore; it denied the right
of any branch Of the government TO
transcend the limitations laid down by
the constitution.
Edward c. Perkins, of counsel for
Goethe, maintained that the constitu-
ton was in effect power of attorney.
The prosecution OF the war 10 Porto
Rico or elsewhere or TO the acquisition
of this or that place We're all acts
which must be brought within the pow
ers OF the constitution The constitu-
ton following the flag" MIR. Perkins
regarded as equivalent 10 saying
that a mans shadow followed him.
THE claim of unlimited power in
new possessions" he said. lis opposed
to our entire theory Of constitutional
government
THE treaty of Paris is not open TO
the construction that Ii provides for
the governing Of Porto Rico without
regard to constitutional limitations
and as country foreign to the United
States"
If the tariff act imposes duty or tax
upon goods brought from Porto Rico
20 a place elsewhere in the United
States after the annexation. the mpo-
stion is void as being in conflict With
an express provision OF the constitu-
ton.
When the treaty Of Paris took effect
Porto Rico ceased to be a foreign
country within the meaning of those
words as used In the tariff act"