The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-01-15


the United States may be exercised in
time of absolute peace without neces-
sarily applying the provisions of the Con-
stitution over that territory. The second
was that the grant of legislative power 10
Congress included the power in Congress
to legislate concerning any subject 10
which the sovereignty of the United
States may be extended.
1t would be difficult in the opinion of
counsel for anyone to find in the Consti-
tuition the grant of power, either in ex-
press term or by Implication, authoriL-
ing the Congress and the President 10 in
teryene In the affairs OF Cuba so as 10 en-
able the people thereof TO organize for
themselves a republic and stable govern
ment. The declaration of war against
Spain was made pursuant to an express
power given to Congress. but the power 10
intervene in Cuba came from the inherent
rights pertaining to the sovereignty of the
nation.
The case for the New York and Porto
Rican Steamship Company was presented
by Mr.. F. Kingsbury Curtis, who based
his argument principally upon the con-
tention that Porto Rican ports were not
foreign ports on June 25, 1900. the date
on which Huus demanded that his ser
vices as pilot in New York harbor be ac-
cepted by the master of the Ponce. arriv-
ing at New York from Ponce, Porto Rico.
This case differs from the others before
the court in that Judge Brown OF the CIR
cult Court for the Southern District Of
New York held that Porto Rico. since the
cession of the island by Spain to the
United States. is not foreign territory,
and vessels sailing from its ports are not
liable to pilotage charges.
At the conclusion of Mr.. Curtis argu-
ment the last one of the several cases
involving the constitutionality of the tar
If laws affecting the new insular possess
sions was called. that of ". II. w. Cross
man & Bro. VS.. the United States. Cross
man & Bro. on the 26th OF April, 1900,
made entry for consumption at the Gus
toms house, New York. Of certain mer-
chandise-whisky, brandy. and jam
brought from Hawaii. They were as
sessed for duty by the collector of the
port and his action was affirmed by the
board of appraisers and by the Circuit
Court for the Southern District OF New
York. The importers appealed to the Su-
preme Court of the United States on the
ground that much of the joint resolu-
tion of Congress annexing Hawaii as pro-
vided that until legislation shall be en-
acted extending the United States GUS
toms laws and regulations to the Ha-
waiian Islands. the existing customs re-
lations of the Hawaiian Islands with the
United States and other countries shall
and void as being in conflict with the pro-
visions of the Constitution of the United
States that "all duties, impost5, and ex-
cises shall be uniform throughout the
United States" and also with the provi-
sion that mo tax or duty shall be laid on
articles exported from any State
Presenting the contentious of the ap-
pellant, Mr. w. Wickham Smith pointed
out the difference between this case and
the others argued last week In the first
place no question was involved of the
force and effect of & Il eaty or its inter-
probation. The islands were annexed by
Joint resolution, the Government Of Ha-
wall having ceded all rights of sovereignty
absolutely and that cesson had been ac-
cepted, ratified and confirmed by Con-
gress.
Secondly. no question was presented in
this case of military government, the ces-
sion of Hawaii was peaceful and unques-
toned. ard meme Of the principles OF in
ternational law as to territory conquered
and ceded temporarily under military
government could be invoked.
And thirdly, Congress in plain and
unqualified language provided for the an
nexation of the islands, as a part-of the
territory of the United States 1t would
seem, said counsel. that no mofe startling
proposition could be enunciated than that
a place thus made a part OF the territory
of the United States should be treated as
a foreign country for the purpose Of taxa
ton under a statute passed year before
the annexation imposing duties on goods
imported from foreign countries.
Mr.. Smith made a new point, to the
effect that the words ''or any place subject
to their jurisdiction were not inserted in
the Thirteenth Amendment to cover the
Territories of the United States. nor to
indicate any recognition that the words
within the United States did not include
the Territories. Recurring to the ques-
tions at issue at the time the amendment
was drafted. counsel asserted that the
words were clearly inserted for the pur-
pose of avoiding controversy as TO
whether or not the States in reoeiiion
we're within the United States.