The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-05-28

administrative act. If the position of the
government be correct the plaintiff would
be remediless: and If a collector should
seize and hold for duties goods brought
from New Orleans or any other concededly
be no method of testing his right to make
such seizure. 1t is hardly possible that the
owner could be placed in this position"
STATUS OF PORTO RICO.
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 de-
pends solely upon the question whether
Porto Rico was a foreign country at the
time the sugars were shipped, since the
tariff act of July "a. 1897. commonly known
as the Dingley act. declares that there
shall be levied, collected and paid upon
all articles imported from foreign coun-
tries certain duties therein specified A
foreign country was defined by Mr.. Chief
Justice Marshall and Mr. Justice STOREY 10
be one exclusively within the sovereignty
of a foreign nation, and without the SOW
ereignty of the United States.
The status of Porto Rico was this: The
island had been for months under military
occupation by the United States as con-
quered country. when by the second article
States and Spain, signed Dec. 10, 1896. and
ratified April IL, 1899, Spain ceded 10 the
United States the island of Porto Rico,
which bas ever since remained In our
possession and has been governed ~ and
administered by US. If the case de Cended
solely on these facts, and the question were
broadly presented whether country which
had been ceded to US, the cesson accepted
possession delivered and the island occupied
and administered without interference
by Spain 3or.nn or any an,tr other 1oweT
territory, it would seem that there
could be as little hesitation in answering
termining the ownership Of house decided
In fee simple TO a purchaser who had ac-
cepted the deed, gone into possession, paid
taxes and made improvements without
let or hindrance from his vendor. But II
is earnestly insisted by the government
that 1t could have never been the inten-
tion Of Congress TO admit Porto Rico into
a customs union with the United States
and that while the island may be to a GER
tain extent domestic territory, it still re-
mains foreign country under the tarii1
laws, until Congress has embraced IL wlthln
the general revenue system.
At great length the court then discussed
similar cases arising from previous ac-
quisitions of territory by the United States,
reviewing very fully former decisions or
the court involving questions such as are
presented in this case. The possessions IN
connection with which the main question
involved I'm this case has arisen are Louis
lana, Florida, Texas, california and Alas.
ka Each case was taken up in order and
analyZed minutely.
The court then presented it's conclusion
in the following language:
"As showing the construction put upon
this question by the Legislative depart
ment We need only to add that Section on
the Foraker act makes a distinction be-
tween foreign countries and Porto ttlco, Dy
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 imported into the
United States from foreign countries.
From this resume OF the decision OF this
court, the instructions of the executive de-
partments and the above act OF Congress-
it is evident that. from 1903. the date or
Mr.. Gallatin's letter, to the present time
there is not shred Of authority, except the
dictum in Fleming VS.. Page, for holding
that district ceded TO and In the posses
sion of the United States, remains for any
purpose a foreign country. Both these con-
dtions must exist to produce change or
nationality for revenue purposes. Posses
sion is not alone sufficient, as was held In
Fleming VS.. Page; nor is a treaty ceding
such territory sufficient without surren-
der of possession. The practice of the ex-
ecutive departments, thus continued fer
more than half a century. Is entitled to
great weight and should not be disregarded
nor overturned except for cogent reasons
and unless IL be clear that such construc-
tion be erroneous. But were this presented
as an original question we should be i'm
PEELED irresistibly to the same conclusion.
by Article 2, Section 2. of the Constitu-
ton, the President is given power by and
with the advice OF and consent of the Sem
ate to make treaties, provided that two
by Article this Constitution and the laws
Of the United States, which shall be made
in pursuance thereof. and all treaties made
or which shall be made, under the authority
OF the United States, shall be the supreme
law of the land
1T VIII be observed that no distinction is
made as to the case of supremacy of laws
and treaties. except that both are controlled
by the Constitution. n law requires the as
sent of both houses of Congress, and, ex-
cept in certain specified cases. the sigma
ture of the President. A treaty is negoti-
ated and made by the President, with the
concurrence of two-thirds of the senator's
present, but each of them is the supreme
law of the land.
"One Of the ordinary incidents of treaty
is the cession of territory. 1t is not too
much TO say Ii is the rule, rather than the
exception. that a treaty of peace, follow
ing upon war. provides for a cession of
territory to the victorious party. The terri
tory thus acquired is acquired as absolutely
as If the annexation were made. as in the
case Of Texas and Hawaii. by an act Of
Congress. 1t follows from this that by rati-
fication of the treaty of Paris the island be-
came territory of the United States-al-
though not organized Territory in the
technical sense of the word.
TANEY'S OPINION.
1T is true that Mr.. Chief Justice Taney
held, in Scott VS.. Sandford. that the terri
torial clause of the Constitution was con-
fined, and intended to be confined to the
territory which at that time belonged
to the United States or was within
their boundaries. as settled with the
treaty with Great Britain, and was not in
tended to apply to territory subsequently
acquired. He seemed to differ In this con-
struction from Chief Justice Marshall.
VINO. In speaking OF Florida before il be-
came a State, remarked that 1t continued
to be territory of the United States, gov
erned by the territorial clause of the Con-
stitution.
But whatever be the source of this
power, its uninterrupted exercise by Com
gress for century and the repeated dec
laratons of this court have settled the law
that the right to acquire territory involves
the right to govern and dispose OF it, In
deed, 1T is scarcely too much to saw that
there has not been session OF Congress
since the Territory Of Louisiana was pur-
chased that that body has not enacted
legislation based on the assumed AUTHORITY
is an authority that arises, not necessarily
from the territorial clause OF the Constitu-
ton, but from the necessities of the case
and the inability OF the States to act upon
the subject. Under this power Congress
may deal with territory acquired by
treaty; may administer its government as
IL does that of the District OF Columbia.
ii may admit IL as a State upon an equal
ity with other States; IL may sell its public
lands 10 individual citizens or may donate
them as homesteads to actual settlers In
short, when once acquired by treaty, il be-
longs TO the United States and is subject 10
the disposition of Congress.
Territory thus acquired can remain a
fOvo try 1ox o..1.-