Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1901-01-10
The DIVIDING LINE,
Where Is It in the Ownership
of Porto Rico?
Gan United States Impose Duties As
from a Foreign Country
Arguments Continued on the Subject Before
The Supreme Court.

i.lc3n cases, continuing his contention
that Porto Rico is not foreign territory
ana hence it is incompetent for the
government authorities to levy and col
lcct duties upon articles imported from
Porto Rico to New York Before TAX
ing up the thread of his argument Mr..
Coudert responded to a question put
yesterday, by Justice Brown, as to
whether country can cease to lie a
foreign country and yet not be part OF
the United States-whether there is an
intermediate condition.
Mr.. Coudert expressed the opinion
that such condition might exist tenn
porarily, and he added that the su-
IRENE court had recognized in dealing
with Tampaco in the case of Flem-
ing vs. Page, and in dealing with CAL
norma in the case of Cross vs.. Harri-
son LefGre the acquisition of California
by the United States was completed.
In such cases, he said, there was still
2 foreign element to be reckoned, and
our assumption of authority was mill
itary in character. This assumption
could be only temporary, and in case
Of the subsequent acquisition of the
must of necessity supercede the mill
tary control. on the other hand if the
territory is not acquired and is rcstor-
ed, the foreign sovereignty takes con-
trcl without any ostentation showing
that all the time it's rights have ex-
listed, though they have been dormant.
Mr.. Coudert contended that in a case
of acquisition the dividing line is pass
ed when a treaty Of acquisition is sign
cd and ratified.
When" he said I'VE sanction az
QUESTION by the ratification of Il treaty
we thus signalize our control of and
sovereignty over new territory"
This, he asserted. had been done in
the case of Porto Rico. in the treaty
of 1898, and by that treaty Porto Rico
had become as such part of the Unit
ed States as California had become
through the proceedings subsequent to
the war with Mexico.
Mr.. Coudert then resumed his regu-
lar argument. taking up the question
as to what part of the constitution APP
plies to Porto Rico. He followed his
brief quite closely in this part of his
address.
WAS
subjected to a number of questions
from the bench, and he obtained leave
to file a supplementary brief which Z
is presumed will contain replies to
them.
Mr. Coudert was followed by Alphon-
so Hart, who spoke especially of the
Armstrong ease in which the question
involved is the collection of duty on
goods shipped from New York to Porto
Rico. He contended that the constitu-
ton Of the United States extends over
every portion Of the national domain.
whether state. territory of district, and
that as Porto Rico was coded to the
United States by the Paris treaty there
was an absolute change OF sovereignty
ana OF title. He also argued that the
President, being an executive officer
only. there was no right to impose du-
ties on commerce between Porto Rico
and other ports of the United States
by Executive order after the ratifica-
ton Of the Paris treaty.
He held that since the ratification of
the peace treaty our title to Porto Rico
is as complete as our title to Ohio or
New York. for there is no such thing
as divided sovereignty.
Referring to Attorney General
GrigSs definition of what constitutes
the United States in the Fourteen
diamond rings" case. Mr.. Hart said
that if this definition is correct, Okla
homa and New Mexico, as well us Por-
to Rico and the Philippines, are not
part Of the Union.
II. w. Ward, counsel for Dooley
Smith & Co., presented the argument
in that case. He laid especial stress
upon the fact that the position of the
Porto Rican law providing for the col
lection of duties is separate from other
parts of that law and that il is limited
i'll operation in point of time to March
/. 1902. Whatever the motive Of the
provision. it was to his mind a plain
violation of the Constitution.
When Mr. Ward finished, Solicitor
General Richards began the presenta-
ton of the governments side of the
to the effect of the ratification of the
Paris treaty upon the relation of this
country and Porto Rico.
Mr.. Richards argued that newly ac-
CURED territory becomes mot a part
nut At i'bSScSSi'Il VI lIc tiittti
territory belonging to the United
States" and he went on to say, Its
disposition and government rest under
the Constitution with the treaty max
ing power and with Congress"
Justice Brown asked: Does it not
cease to be foreign country
TO this query, Mr.. richards answer
ed: Il think not, not within the mean
ing of the customs law. The Dingley
law treated as foreign all territory out
side the limits of the United States,
meaning the states and territories then
created for customs purposes and that
condition remains unless Congress may
see fit to change it,
Continuing. Mr.. Richards contended
that the President has not power to ex-
tend the limits of the United States,
but that the legislative branch of the
government may do SO upon whatever
terms it sees fit.
''Certainly'' he went on, the treaty
never intended to make these tropical
islands a part of the United States in
the constitutional sense and just as
certainly did make them n part of the
United States in the international
sense.
Mr. Richards had about half conclud-
ed his argument when the court ad-
iourned for the day.