Marietta daily leader. (Marietta, Ohio) 1895-1906, 1901-01-09
PORTO RICO
Cases Argued In Supreme Court by SoIlcl
tor General Richards.
BY Associated Press.

eral Richards, in behalf of the Govern
ment, filed in the United States Su
preme Court. a brief in the cases
brought by Elias e. Delima, Samuel
Downs, Henry w. Dooley, Carlos Arm
strong and Geo. w. Crossman against
either Geo. R. Bidwell, Collector of the
Port of New York, or the United States
directly, all involving the question of
taxation returns between the United
States and our insular possessions.
The cases cover several phases of the
dominion of the United States over
the islands both before and after the
ratification of the Paris treaty of peace,
and also after the legislation of Con-
gress with reference to them.
The feature of the brief is the direct
notice lit takes of ex-PreSldent Harri-
sons address at Ann Arbor and the
response made thereto in behalf of the
Administration. The Delima case con
Germs the duties collected on sugar i'm
ported into New York from Porto Rico
after the ratification of the Paris
treaty and before the passage of the
late Ito duties ON oranges brought from
Porto Rico into New York after the
passage of the Porto Rican act, the
two Dooley casIes and the Armstrong
case to duties on goods imported from
Porto Rico during the military occu-
pancy and PARTLY before and PARTLY af-
ter the ratification of the treaty, and
also after the passage cf the Porto Ri
co tariff act. and the Crossman case
to duties on liquors imported from
Honolulu into New York after the
passage of the resolution admitting
the Hawaiian Islands and before the
passage of the act providing for their
government.
Reference to Ex-Prestdent Harri-
sons Ann Arbcr address is preceded
by a statement of the Government S
position with reference to the extent
to which the Constitution applies to
newly acquired TERRITORY. The brief
denies the doctrine of ex-proprlo vi
gore and that all limitations of the
Constitution apply everywhere
throughout the score of the authority
of the Government. but it says that
there are limitations in the Constftu-
ton which do apply throughout both
States and Territories organized and
unorganiZed, because some Limitations
apply it does not follow that all apply.
Those which do apply everywhere,
both Within and without the United
States in its broadest sense, it says, are
those securing the blessings of justice
and liberty to all the people. Tyranny
and oppression cannot constituJfonally
exist under the sovereignty of the re-
public, whose founders declared that
all men are entitled to life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness.
This is what Justice Bradley meant
when he s'aid N THE Mormon Church
VS.. the United States 136 U. S. l, 44):
"DouIbtless Congress in le2i5,ating for
the Territories would be subject to
those fundamental limitjfons in fa-
vor OF THE personal rights which are
formulated in the Constitution and its
But these Limitations
would exist rather bv inference and
the general spirit of the Constitution
from which Congress derives all its
power than by any express and direct
of its provisions"
This statement of the GOVERNMENT
ground leads it uD TO the not
ice which it takes Cf ex-Presddent Har-
rison'G address. OF this address Soil
cltor Richards brief says: In recent
address a distinguished statesman and
lawyer affects TO believe that If the
view Of the Government is correct
Congress could without constitutional
pass a Porto Rioan act pro-
yilding for a number of shocking
things. The Government never as
serted end 'doels not believe that Con-
gress has the power of a despot in
Foruo Rico.
The fundamental limitations in favor
Of personal rights which are formulat-
ed in the Constitution and its amend
menus referred to by Justice Bradley,
stand in THE way of everything sug-
gestell which shocks the moral sense.
Congress could not pass amy expost
facto LAW. or declare an attainder or
grant amy title of nobility, or provide
for trial or punishment or treason 9th
er than in the way marked out by the
Constitution, all these things being
prohibited by direct and applicable
provisions.
If the first ten amendments do not
limit, by direct application of Con-
gress in legisiating for ournewpossess-
sions, neither do they operate Within
the Suites which compose the Union.
AS this Curt. speaking by Chief JUS
Nm.HHa I s.k-.I N.aa