The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-01-10
Contention Made that the United
States Constitution Covers All Our
Possessions secured by Treaty.
COUDERT, HART AND WARD
THEIR ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE
GOVERNMENTS POSITION.
Solicitor General Richards on the
Rights and Powers o. Treaty
Makers and Congress.

WASHINGTON, Jan. e.-OnIthe ~reconyen-
ing of the United States Supreme Court
to-day Mr.. f. r. Coudert, jrl resumed his
argument in the Porto Rican cases, con-
tinuing his contention that Porto Rico is
not foreign territory, and hence that 1t
Is incompetent for the government authori-~
ties &c levy and collect duties on articles
imported from Porto Rico to New York.
Before taking up that part of his argu-
ment Mr.. Coudert undertook to respond
TO a question propounded to him by Justice
Brown. The question was whether n
country can cease to be a foreign country
and yet not be a part Of the United States
whether there is an intermediate condi-
ton. Replying. Mr.. Coudest expressed
the opinion that such a condition might
exist temporarily, and he added that the
Supreme Court recognized it in dealing
with Tampico, in the case OF Fleming VS..
Page, and in dealing with California in the
case of Cross VS.. Harrison, before the ac-
QUESTION of California by the United States
was completed. lin such cases, he said.
there was still a foreign element TO be
reckoned with. and our assumption of au-
thority was military in character. This as
sumption could be only temporary, and in
case of the subsequent acquisition of the
country in question civil government must
of necessity supersede the military con-
troll. On the other hand, If the territory
is not acquired, and is restored, the foreign
sovereign takes control without ostenta-
ton, showing that all the time it's rights
have existed, though they have been dor
nant.
Mr.. Coudert contended that in a case OF
Qpn1IicitipD the dividing line iS ma SSQd when
a treaty OF acquisition is signed and rati-
fied. When, he said, we sanction acqui-
sition by the ratification of a treaty We
thus signalize our control of and soveign-
ty oyer new territory. This, he asserted,
has been done in the case of Porto Rico in
the treaty of 1898. and by the treaty Porto
Rico had become as much a part of the
United States as California had become
through the proceedings subsequent to the
war with Mexico.
Mr.. Coudert. then resumed his regular
argument. taking up the question as 10
what part of the Constitution applies 20
Porto Rico. He followed his brief quite
Closely in this part OF his address.
Before he concluded Mr.. Coudert was
subjected TO a number of questions from
the bench and obtained leave to file a sup
Elementary brief which, it is presumed,
will contain replies to them.
OTHER ARGUMENTS.
Mr.. Coudert was followed by A. Q. Hart,
who spoke especially of the Armstrong
case. in which the question involved is
the collection of duty on goods shipped
from New York to Porto Rico. He con-
tended that the Constitution of the United
| States extends over every portion of the
| national domain, whether State, Territory
or District. He also argued hat the Pres
ident, being an executive officer, had no
| right to impose duties on be-
tween Porto Rico and ''other parts of the
| United States by executive order after
| the ratification of the Paris treaty. THE
idea," he said. that in one portion of the
country the executive and legislative au-
thority is subject to restrictions and is
without restriction in another part is re-
pugnant to the theory of our government
and cannot be tolerated." There is. said
he, no such thing as divided Sovereignty
half empire and half republic, half Spanish
and half American.
Fl. w. Ward. counsel for Dooley. Smith G,
Co., laid especial stress upon the fact that
the position of the Porto Rican law pro-
viding for the collection of duties is sep
arate from other parts of that law. and
that it is limited in operation in point of
time to March i, 1902. He characterized it
as a makeshift to provide revenues for the
island of Porto Rico. and said it was there
fore not entitled to the same favorable
presumption that il otherwise would have
been. Whatever the motive of the provf-
sion, 1t was, to his mind, a plain viola
ton of the Constitution, and he quoted
nbiiiciOuS Al suppoit VI the
statement.
When Mr.. Ward finished, Solicitor Gen.
eral Richards began the presentation of
the governments side of the controversy,
giving especial attention to the effect OF
the ratification of the Paris treaty upon
the action of this country and Porto
Rico. He said that denial OF the power
which is being exercised by the President
and Congress amount TO saying that coded
territory becomes, by the act of cession. ar
integral part of the United States, to which
| the ConctitrfiOn IF tic nuyn foroa .--r.-
placing it's people, its products and it,
ports on an immediate equality with ours
and also extending the constitutional lint
tations to such countries. If this was the
case, said Mr.. Richards, the treaty-makinp
power in acquiring territory is necessarily
limited TO providing for mere act of ces.
sion. ut is thus" he said, stripped OF
its proper functions; ii cannot treat, it is
lame, impotent. impossible, ridiculous"
Mr.. Richards argued that newly acquire,
territory becomes. mot a part. but a pos
session of the United States-territor,
belonging to the United States" and n,
went on to say: "Its disposition and gov
eminent rest under the Constitution will
the treaty making power and with Con
gress.
''Then. docs such territory fall within tn.
provision which requires duties to be as
sessed upon goods arriving from a for
eign country" asked Justice Brown.
Before Mr.. Richards could reply he pu
the question in a different shape, saying
Docs ii not cease to be foreign country? 2"
10 THIS query MT. tlcnardS answered
81 think not, not within the meaning o
the customs law. The Dingley law treate,
as foreign all territory outside the limit
of the United States, meaning the State
and Territories then created for custom
purposes as the United States and tina
condition remains until Congress may Sc
fit to change it,"
Continuing, Mr.. Richards commended tina
the President has not power TO extend tn
limits of the United States, but that tn
legislative branch of the government ma,
dc so on whatever terms il may see fl
He said further that the parties to tn
treaty both knew hat the location an
condition of the islands acquired by wa
with Spain would not permit their incor
poration into the United States and tn
application TO them of those OF our law
which the Constitution requires to be uni
form throughout the United States. Ger
tainly," he went on, 1.-THE treaty never in
tended TO make these tropical islands
part OF the United States in the consti
tutional sense and just as certainly di
make them a part Of the United State
In the international sense"
Mr.. richards had about half conclude
his argument when the court adjourne
for the day.