The age-herald., 1901-05-28
THE CONSTITUTION DOES FOLLOW THE FLAG
 SAYS THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT

half of the majority of the court by MT Justice Brown, the opinion being concur red in by all the justices except Justices McKenna, Shiras and White. The decis- ion hung upon the case from the state of New York involving the levying of S3,OO0 in duties on goods imported from Porto Rico into the United tSates, the collection of the duty having been sus- tained by the lower court. In effect the decision was that the territory acquired by the United States is part of the United States and not foreign territory and that such import duties could not De levied. The decision of the lower court was reversed.
 Justice Brown said the court undoubt- edly has jurisdiction in this case. lie said the case raised the single question whether territory acquired by the United States by cession from a foreign power remained foreign country" within the meaning of the tariff laws, and added:
 Questions Involved.
 "The question involved in this case is not whether the sugars were importable articles under the tariff laws, they were imported from foreign country-in other words. whether they were imported at all as that word Is defined in Woodruff versus Parham. We think the decision in the FSassett case is conclusive to the effect that, if sugars were imported or not, such question could be raised before the board of general appraisers, and that whether they were imported means for the reasons given in the Fassett case that vessel is not an importable article or because the merchandise was not C.. l. terial In either case the article is not imported.
 "Conceding then that section 3011 has been repealed and that no remedy exists under the customs administrative act, does 1t follow that no action whatever will lie? If there be an admitted wrong, the courts will be looked to for an ade- quate remedy. If an action lay at com mon law the repeal of sections 2931 and S011, regulating proceedings In customs cP (that Is, turning upon the classif- cation of merchandise) to make way for another proceeding before the board of general appraisers in the same class of cases, did not destroy any right of ac- ton that might have existed as to other customs cases and the fact that by sec tion 25 no collector shall be liable for on account of any rulings or decisions as to the classification of such merchandise or the duties charged thereon, or the col lection of any dues, charges or duties on Or on account of any such merchandise, or any other matter which the importer might have brought before the board of general appraisers, does not restrict the right which the owner of the merchant disc might have against the collector in cases not falling within the customs ad- ministrative act If the position of the government be correct, the plaintiff would be remediless and if collector | should seize and hold for duties goods brought from New Orleans or any other concedely domestic port tesNew York, there would be no method of testing his right to make such a, seizure. It is hard ly possible that the owner could be placed in this position.''
 The Sugar Tariff.
 After citing numerous opinions and au- thorities to show that the action of the plaintiffs in error was properly brought the court holds that whether these cargoes of sugar were subject to duty depends solely upon the question whether Porto Rico was foreign coun- try at the time the sugars were shipped, since the tariff act of July 21 1S97 com monly known as the Dingley act, de- cares that there shall be levied, col lected and paid unon all articles imported from foreign countries certain duties therein specified. A foreign country was defined by MT. Chief Justice Marshall and MT. Justice Story, to be one exclu- sively within the sovereignty of foreign nation. and without the sovereignty of the United States.
 "The status of Porto Rico was this: The Island had been for some months under military occupation by the United States as a conquered country when the secondary act of the treaty of peace be- tween the United States and Spain, sign aAl Ayavf1 1899, Spain ceded to the United States the island of Porto Rico, which has ever since remained in our possession and has been governed and administered by us. If the case depended solely upon those facts and the questions were broadly presented whether a country which had been ceded to us, the cession accepted, possession delivered and the island administered without interference by Spain or any other power, was a foreign country or domestic territory 1t would see there could be as little hesitation in answering this question as there would be in de- termining the question of the ownership of house deeded in fees to a purchaser who had accepted the deed, gon into pos session, paid taxes and made improve ments without let or hindrance from his vendor. But 1t Is earnestly insisted by the government that 1t never could have been the intention of Congress to admit fortO ftlcO lntO a customs union Wltn the United States. and that, while this island may be to a certain extent domes- tic territory, it still remains a foreign country under the tariff laws, until Con- gress has embraced it within the general revenue system"
 Similar Cases Discussed.
 The court then discussed similar cases arising from previous acquisitions of ter ritory by the United States and reviewed fully former decisions of the court involv- ing questions such as are held in this case. The possessions in connection which the main question involved in this case has risen are Louisiana, Florida, was taken up in order and analysed minutely The court then presented its conclusions in the following language:
 '.As showing the construction put upon this question by the legislative depart ment, We need only to add that section of the Foraker act makes distinction between foreign countries and Porto Rico by enacting that the same duties shall be paid upon all articles imported into Porto Rico from ports other than those of the United States, which are required by law to be collected upon articles im- ported into the United States from for eign countries.
 From the decisions of this court the instructions of the executive department and the above act of Congress 1t Is evil dent that from 1893, the date of MT. Gal latin's letter, to the present time, there is not shred of authority except in the dictum in Flemings vs. Page for holding that district ceded to and in the pos- session of the United States remains for any purpose foreign country Both