The Savannah morning news., 1901-05-27
WILL MAKE DECISION
s,-PREME COURT TO SPEAK ON IN
SULAR CASES.
CONSTITUTION AND THE FLAG.
DoEs THE FIRST FOLLOW THE
SECOND or NOT.


der Consideration for Months-so-
ucitor General Richards Gives Out
statement Setting Forth the
Questions Involved as They Re-
Iate to Customs Duties-Is Porto
8ico IA Part of United States the
Real Question:
Washington. May 26.-Owing to the fact
.,at the United States Supreme Court
mill adjourn tomorrow for the term, the
oniuion is quite general that the court
Mill deliver it's opinion in the insular cases
which were heard last winter, In view
nj this probability, Solicitor General Rich
ards has prepared an unofficial statement
having the questions involved in the var
ions cases, which is as follows:
THE Particular Duties Drawn in
Question.
All these cases are virtually customs
cases. They raise the validity under the
constitution of the following exactions:
First. Duties on goods imported into
The United States from the Philippines
after the ratification of the treaty. The
fourteen diamond rings case, Pepke,
claimant.
Second. Duties on goods imported into
Porto Rico from the United States during
the military occupation of the island, af-
fer the signing of the protocol and before
the ratification of the treaty of Paris.
such were some of the duties collected in
the Armstrong case.
Third. Duties collected on goods Imported
into Porto Rico from the United States
during the military occupation, but after
she cession of Porto Rico by the ratih-
catiO of the treaty and before the pas
sage Of the Porto Rico act. Such duties
were collected in the Armstrong case and
in the first Dooley case.
Fourth. Duties collected on goods
imported into the United States
from Porto Rico after the rat
ifcation of the treaty, and
before the taking effect of the Porto Klcan
act. Such were duties exacted in the
Goetze case and in the DeLima case.
Fifth. Duties collected on goods coming
into the United States from Porto Rico
after the Porto Rican act took effect.
The validity of these eXactions is
brought in question in the Downes case.
sixth. Duties collected on goods coming
into Porto Rico from the United States
after the taking effect of the Porto Rican
Get. SuCh were the duties eAdcteQ IN the
second Dooley case.
Seventh Duties collected on goods i'm
ported into the United States from Hawaii
after the annexation and before the Ha-
waiian act went into effect. Such were
the duties in the Crossman case.
Questions of Jurisdiction.
The propriety of the course of proceed
ure is i'm question in all of these cases
except the Fourteen Diamond Rings case.
This results from the different methods
adopted by counsel in testing the consti-
tutonality of the customs exactions.
In the Goethe and Crossman cases the
duties were paid under protest and the
procedure laid down in the customs ad-
illustrative act was followed. This the
government believes to be the proper
method. But if counsel in the cases to be
mentioned are correct, then this course
probably was wrong.
In the DeLima and the Downes case the
duties paid were laid under protest and
suit brought against the collector to re-
cover back. This the government thinks
was wrong.
In the Dooley cases and the Armstrong
case the duties were paid under protest
ana suit brought against the
United States to recover back
me Armstrong case being brought
IN the Court of Claims and the Dooey
cases in the United States Circuit Court.
IhIs the government thinks was wrong.
II the Jursdictional points made by the
solernment were sustained there would
sui remain the fourteen diamond rings
case the Goethe case and the Crossnan
case which raises the fundamental ques-
uon under the treaty, but do not involve
the validity of the Porto Rican act.
The Material Questions Involved.
The primary question is whether the
cssslon contained in the treaty of Paris
made Porto Rico and the Philippines an
integral part of the United States, within
We meaning Of the provision requiring
AL duties imposts and excuses, to be uni
FORM throughout the United States"
Inc secondary question is whether the
temporary revenue provision in the Porto
Hcan act levying duties on goods coming
from Porto Rico into the United States,
ana on goods coming from the United
n states INTO Porto Rico, to be used for the
benefit of Porto Rico, until the insular
government could provide revenue of it's
own violates the constitutional provision
mat No tax or duty shall be laid on ar
"-ies exported from any state"
Ike the primary question, is the ques-
ron raised in the Hawaiian case,
namely whether the resolution of
o"ueSatlon made Hawaii an inte-
graz part of the United States with
~ the meaning of the Limitation of tax
n .Hs cause, so that instantly on annexa-
mou our customs laws applied there, not
Fl ni'ns 'anding the express provision of the
Iesolution that the existing customs laws
81 ~ -Ie hawaiian republic should continue
av ice until Congress should pass an act
e. er6s Ons our customs laws to the ISL