The Honolulu republican. [volume] (Honolulu, T.H.) 1900-1902, 1901-08-11

't4tAlet - 442444e64-s-4 Il 4G4Ra. - -
appears fan she list Ct documents
submitted ~ Mr. johnson upon the
argument Of that eAse. q. s111 tia
attention Of the corrx vas lot called
20 these Instructions, though other Re<-
teTS and circulars were introduced
bearing date Of 1876 and IS47. as well
as the treaty q peace cg February :.
1888 Had the correspondence ahuys
cited been laid before the court x Is
Incredible that the Chief Justice
should have said that the depart
us1f II no instance that we are
aware OF. since the establishment OF
the government. has ever recognized
place in newly acquired country rs
domestic port, from which the coast
ing trade might be carried on, unIeza
il had been previously made so b.
act Of Congress
Alaska: This territory was ceded
TO rs BY Russia by treaty ratified
June 20. 1851. us Stat 539.l and pos
session was delivered to Us at the
same time. No actNf Congress ex-
tending the revenue laws TO Alaska
and erecting q collection district was
passed until July %, 1865 us Stat
24e9 4 period Of thirteen months
then elapsed before Alaska was for
Enally recognized By Congress as
within the Customs Union. yet during
that period goods from Alaska were.
under decision of the Secretary Of
the Treasury. admitted free of duty.
BY letter Of Mr. Mccullough. then
Secretary Of the Treasury. TO the col-
lector OF the port OF New York, dated
April S, 1865, he acknowledges receipt
of a request from the Russian Minis
ter for the free entry of certain oil
shipped from Sitka to San Francisco
and reshipped TO New York He states;
The request for the free entry OF
said oil was made on the ground that
| the oil was shipped from Sitka after
the ratification OF the treaty by which
| the territory of Alaska became the
property OF the United States. The
| treaty in question wac ratified on the
goth of June. 1867, and the collector
| at San Francisco has reported that
the manifest of the vessel shows the
| oil to have been shipped from Alaska
on the 9Th day of July. 1867, and that
the shipment consisted OF fifty-two
packages Under these circumstances
you are hereby authorized TO admit the
said fifty-two packages OF oil free Of
duty"
This position was Endorsed by the
Secretary of State, Mr.. Seward, in a
letter dated January 80, 1869. in which
he said:
q understand the decision of the
Supreme Court in the case of Harri
son V. Cross, DC How. 164,) to declare
its opinion that, upon the addition tc
the United States of new territory by
conquest and cession, the acts regulat
ing foreign commerce attach to and
take effect within such territory ipsC
facto, and without any fresh act o.
legislation expressly giving such ex
tension to the pre-existing laws. | car
see no reason for a discrimination il
this effect between acts regulating
foreign commerce and the laws regu
lating intercourse with the IndiaI
tribes
AS showing the construction pui
upon this question by the Legislative
department, we need only to add thai
Sec. 2 of the Foraker act makes dis
tinction between foreign countries ant
Porto Rico, by enacting that the same
duties shall be paid upon all article:
imported into Porto Rico from port:
other than those of the United States
which are required by law to be col
lected upon articles imported into th'
United States from foreign countries
From this resume of the decision.
of this court, the instructions Of the
executive departments. and the above
act of Congress, it is evident that
from 1903. the date of Mr.. Gallatin':
letter, to the present time, there Ii
not a shred of authority. except th'
dietum in Fleming V. Page (practfcal
" overruled in Cross v. Harrison,l FOL
holding that country coded to and il
the possession of the United States re
mains for any purpose foreign coun
try. Both these conditions must ex
list TO produce a change of nationaIit.
for revenue purposes. Possession Il
not alone sufficient, as was held II
Fleming V. Page; nor is treaty ced
ing such territory sufficient without
surrender of possession (keene
McDonough, 8 Pet 30S; Pollard
Heirs Y. Kibbe, II Pet. 35S. 406; Halle
V. Hunt, I Ala Se9; The Fama, 5 On
Rob. 80 The practice OF the execu
tive departments thus continued 70
more than half century. is entitled
TO great weight. and should not be dis
| regarded nor overturned except 70
| cogent reasons, and unless il be clea
that ouch construction be erroneous
Omitted States Y. Johnson. ia U. 5
ESQ. and other cases cited.)
But were this presented as an orig
nal question we should be impeiled II
resfstibiy TO the same conclusion.
BY Article II. Section ?. Of the Con
stftution. the President is given power
by and with the advice and conEen
OF the Senate. to make treaties. pro
vided that two thirds Of the Senator
present concur. And by Art VI
this Constitution and the laws of tn
United States. which shall be made /
pursuance thereof. and al treatie
made or which shall be made. unde
the authority OF the United States
shall be the supreme law Of the land
It will be observed that no distinctiol
is made as to the question OF 81
premacy between laws and treaties
except that both are controlled By N
Constitution A Law requires the q
sent OF both houses Of Congress, and
except in certain specified cases, IN
signature Of the President A treaty
negotiated and made by the Presiden'
with the concurrence Of two-thiras
the Senators present, but each Of fhef
II Is the supreme iaw Of the land