New-York tribune., 1901-05-29
THE lNSULAR PROBLEMS.
NEW PHASES IN SUITS THAT
RElMAIN UNDECIDED.
EXACT STATUS OF NEW POSSESSIONS
STILL INVOLVED IN SOME DOUBT
NO MORE DECISIONS BE-
FORE OCTOBER.
TBY TELEGRAPH TO THE TRIBuSE.l

utes the Supreme Courts term was declared
ended by order OF Chief Justice Fuller and the
crowd which had assembled in the chamber in
the confident expectation that decisions would
be handed down in the remaining insular test
suits dispersed in a mood of mingled disap-
pointment and unsatisfied curiosity as to lust
how far-reaching and sweeping are the mo-
Tnentous opinions announced by the court yes
terday- That is to say. the test cases-two in
number-whch the court cannot now pass upon
until it reassembles on the second Monday in
October. are generally believed to touch new
phases of the great problems solved yesterday.
and until these phases are brought into har-
Tnony with the principles enunciated by the
court in the Downes decision, there must he
wide speculation and considerable uncertainty
as TO the exact status of the new island posses
sions.
THE PHILIPPINE CASE.
one OF these cases is that Of Emile Pepke.
private soldier in a North Dakota regiment
which took part in the first Philippine cam
paign While in the islands Pepke purchased
fourteen diamond rings and brought them home
with him. The customs officer at San Fran
CISCO the port of entry, did not require Pepke
to make a declaration. A short time after the
soldier mustered out OF the army he was
arrested by the customs officials at Chicago,
who seized the diamonds he had brought from
the Philippines and treated Pepke as snnuggler
Fepke brought suit in the United States District
Court at Chicago for the recovery OF his prop
erty He lost in that court, and by successive
appeals his suit reached the Supreme Court.
Peplzes case was the first OF the series OF
jnsular test suits argued in the Supreme Court.
Naturally it was thought II would be the first
decided But since the court has held IL over to
the next term. it is popularity inferred that this
case differs materially from the others. and
therefore the justices want more time In Wnich
10 consider IT. This is the view Of Solicitor
General Richards who assisted Attorney-Gen- n
eral Griggs in the preparation OF the govern
,,ant,s argument and who is strongly impressed
with the belief that the courts delay in de-
Gliding the case is due 10 the discovery by one
or more of the justices that new and vital is
sues are involved in the Pepke suit. Basing MS
belief on this assumption, the Solicitor-General
is inclined TO the optimistic view that the de-
cision in the De Lima case yesterday. which de-
MED in1nnaterial parts only of the governments
contention does not cover the Philippine case,
and hence the courts action does not in any
way affect the past, present or future status
Of the Philippines. The Treasury Department
also takes this view of the subject. and AS
eistant Secretary Spaulding. who has general
supervision of all customs matters, announced
today that the courts action in the Porto
T2ican case would cause no change in the Treas
chandise from the Philippines will continue to
pay full tariff rates at the ports of the United
States.
CONFLICTING VIEWS OF THE DECISION.
However some OF the most experienced leg
islators as well as Of the ablest lawyers IN
Washington take exactly the opposite view Of
the matter and declare that the De Lima de-
cision puts the Philippines free trade foot
ing with the United States. Ex-senator Chand-
1er. for example who took prominent part in
framing the administrations colonial policy, un-
hesitatinglv declares that we are TO have free
trade with the Philippines until Congress
passes a special act 10 the contrary.
on the other hand, there are many able
lawyers who hold that since the Philippines still
are technically. if not in fact on war basis,
the President is empowered under the provisions
Of the Spooner resolution TO draft and pro
claim a special tariff schedule for the islands
Mr.. Chandler meets this assertion with the con-
tention that while the Spooner resolution clothes
the President with plenary power in respect to
the Philippines. these powers are limited 30 the
internal administration Of the islands and do
not extend 10 the ports OF the United States In
other words Mr.. Chambers contention is that
the President cannot of his own act throw the
ports Of this country open for the free admis-
sion Of Philippine products, though the effect
Of the Supreme Courts De Lima decision does
This.
Ex-senator Chandler gave to The Tribune to-
night very succinct Interpretation of the
courts decisions yesterday, as follows:
Justices Brown, Fuller Harlan. Brewer and
Peckham hold that Porto Rico and the Philip
pines are not foreign countries but are terri
tories Of the United States, and in the absence
Of special legislation by Congress goods can
come therefrom into the United States free of
duty. Justices Fuller, Harlan. Brewer ana Peck
ham also go further and hold that Congress
cannot by legislation prevent the admission or
goods from those places free oI & duty' ,.,s,.o ,.
But Justices Brown, Gray, Shlras Whlte and
McKenna hold that the Foraker act. imposing
u per cent of the regular tarlH dutles on soods
from Porto Rico, is constitutional
The effect OF the decisions is that all goods
coming from Porto Rico before the Foraker act
and an goods coming from the Philippines at
any time are free Of duty, and any payments OF
duties eXacted contrary TO the principles OF the ne
have free trade with the Philippines until Con-
gress lesislates.
THE PORTO RICAN CASE
The other case which the court postponed
along with the Philippine case touches on an
other and important side of the Porto Rican
question. It is known as the second Dooley
case. and deals with the collection Of the Foraker
tariff tax on goods shipped TO Porto Rico from
the United States John G. Carlisle the leading
counsel against the government, took the bold
ground in his argument in the second Dooley
case that the Foraker law imposed an export
tax on shipments from the United States. which
is plainly and distinctly prohibited by the con-
stitution II therefore the court in deciding
this case next fall holds that it is an export tax
or tariff IN IS evident that the decision in the
Downes case unfolding the Foraker law will be
wboll,y or rarttall, reversed Thus confusions