The Honolulu republican. [volume] (Honolulu, T.H.) 1900-1902, 1900-08-11
STATUS Of HAWAII
| DURING InIERREenUm.
Decision of Treasury
Department on
Tariff.
holds DUTIES MUST Be PAID.
REFUSES TO PASS UPON CON-
sTITUTIoNAL QUESTIONS
INVOLVED.
Declares That They Must Be Final
ly Settled by the Supreme
Court Of the United
States.
stan Correspondence ., The Republican

Stan Correspondents OF The Republican!
NEW YORK, July 2s.-General ap-
praiser Someryille yesterday handed
| down a decision overruling the pro-
| test Of W. H. Crossman & Bro. against
| the assessment OF duty on merchandise
imported into this country from Ea-
wall. The importers claimed that such
assessment was unconstitutional, on The
ground that Hawaii had become a part
Of the United States by the joint reso-
luton Of Congress Of July Z. 1888
Mr.. Somerville did not attempt to de-
eide the constitutional question involv-
ed, but overruled the protest on the
principle that no act Of Congress should
be pronounced unconstitutional unless
its incompatibility with the constitu-
ton is clear The decision is in part as
follows:
The question involved in this protest
IL the constitutional right Of Congress
to levy duties on merchandise imported
from the Hawaiian Islands after the
PRONUNCIATION Of the joint resolution to
provide for annexing the Hawaiian
Islands to the United States, approved
July Z, 1898.
The goods in question, which were
imported from Honolulu into the port
of New York on April 26, 1900, consist
Of whisky, brandy and jam. These ar
ticles were assessed for duty under ap-
propriate paragraphs Of the tariff act
Of July "a, 1897, and no question is
made as to the correctness Of the col
lectors classification, 1t being conceded
that IL the articles were dutiable at all
under said act, the proper duties were
assessed upon them.
The contention Of the importers is
that at the time of the shipment and
entry Of the goods the Hawaiian ISL
ands constituted part OF the territory
Of the United States, and that for this
reason they were not subject to duty
under the Dingley act, but were entitled
to free entry. The right of Congress to
levy these duties is denied.
The antagonistic contentious involv-
ed in this protest may be briefly for
INFLATED as follows:
1t is contendd on the part Of the
government that the Federal consti-
tuition does not extend, ex proprioro
vigore, with all its limitations, to newly
acquired territory not yet admitted as
a State: that the power of Congress
over the territories is general and
plenary to make such rules and regu-
lations for their government as, in its
that body may see fit to
do, subject only to those fundamental
in favor of personal rights
which are formulated in the Constitu-
ton and in its amendments, it being
that these limitations arise
by inference and from the general
spirit Of that instrument rather than
by express and direct application of its
provisions.
A further contention of the govern |
ment is that until Congress by special
legislation extends the tariff and other |
revenue laws over newly acquired terri |
tory, and establishes therein collection
districts, with ports of entry and clear |
ance for vessels, such territory remains |
q foreign country for tariff purposes,
and its ports are not domestic ports |
within the meaning of the laws of |
Congress.
The importers, on the other hand, |
that Congress is the creature |
Of the Federal Constitution; that i. |
derives all its just powers |
from the provisions of that instrument,
and that, while in legislating for the |
it may properly exercise the |
combined powers Of the general and |
1f state government. nevertheless the |
Federal government is one of delegated |
powers, and all Of its legislative au-
.hority must be exercised in subordi- /
nation to the principles and subject to
he limitations Of the constitution.
On these issues the decisions OF the !
courts and the opinions of jurists are,
apparently, in state OF conflict. if not /
If inextricable confusion. The question
yress over newly acquired territory |
must finally be settled by an authori-
.ative decision a. the hands of the
highest judicial authority In the land, /
he Supreme Court Of the United States,
he final arbiter of all such disputed
judicial questions.
In pronouncing on the constitution
llity Of legislative act, the rule
adopted by the courts is to indulge the
that such act Is consti-
utional until clearly convinced to the
contrary.
In view Of this well settled principle
md OF the conflict of authorities, the
,oard thinks 1t proper to override the
protest and affirm the. collectors de.
ision. which is accordingly ordered.