The Savannah morning news. (Savannah, Ga.) 1900-current, 1901-05-28

announced opinions outlining their respec.
tive positions. Justices Shiras, White and
McKenna dissented in the DeLima case
uniting in an opinion. Justice Gray pre-
sented an independent and dissenting
opinion in that case.
The other cases decided by the court
were those of Goetz vs.. the United States,
involving duties on importations from
Porto Rico and Crossman VS.. the United
States, duties on Hawaiian imports being
involved In these two cases the DeLima
decision was followed and assessment of
duties prior to enactment of legislation for
the islands held Illegal.
The assessment of duties was partly sus-
tanned and partly upheld in the cases of
Dooley and, Armstrong VS.. the United
States. The duties were held legal when
made during the military occupation of
Porto Rico and prior to ratification of the
peace treaty. but illegal when levied after
the peace treaty but prior to passage of
the Foraker act
The small court room was crowded to
repletion throughout the day, prominent
government officials and many attorneys
being present, and the proceedings were
attended from start to finish with keen
interest.
Decision in De Lima Case.
The first case decided was that of Elias
S. A. DeLima ct al. plaintiffs in error
against George r. Bidwell, collector of
the port of New York, the case coming
to the Supreme Court from the Circuit
Court of the United States for the dis
trict of New York. The decision was rem
dered on behalf of the majority Of the
court by Justice Brown, the opinion being
concurred in by all the justices except
Justices McKenna, Shiras and White. The
decision hung upon the case coming from
the state of New York involving the levy
! ing of S1S 600 in duties on goods imported
from Porto Rico into the United States,
the collection of the duty having been
sustained by the lower court In effect
the decision was that territory acquired
by the United States is a part of the
United States and not foreign territory,
and that such import duties could not be
levied. The decision of the lower court
was reversed.
Stin Foreign to an Extent.
Justice Brown announced in the begin
ming of his decision that the court un-
doubtedly has jurisdiction In this case. He
said the case raised the single question
whether the territory acquired by the
United States by cession from foreign
power remained foreign country"
within the meaning of the tariff laws.
The status of the island under military
rule, following the treaty of peace, was
set forth and Justice Brown then pro-
ceeded to consider the contention of the
governments counsel that the island still
remained to a certain extent foreign ter
ritory under the tariff laws until Con-
gress had embraced it in the general rev..
enue system.
AS bearing on this the opinion reviewed
at length the conditions following the ac-
QUESTION of Florida, Louisiana, Califor-
mia, Texas and Alaska. In summing up
these conditions the court stated that
from 1903 down to the present time there
is not a shred of authority, except the
dictum in Fleming VS.. Page, for holding
that a district ceded to and in the pos
session of the United States remains for
any purpose foreign country. The prac
tice of the Executive Department for
more than half a century should not be
overturned except for cogent reasons.
BY the ratification OF the treaty of
Paris the island became territory of the
United States-although not an organized
territory in the technical sense of the
word.
Whatever be the source of the power.
its uninterrupted exercise by Congress for
century, and the repeated declarations
OF this court, have settled the law that
the right to acquire territory involves the
deed, it is scarcely too much to say
Indeed it is scarcely too much to say
that, there has not been a session of Con-
gress since the territory OF Louisiana
was purchased, that that body has not
enacted legislation based upon the as
sumed authority to govern and control
the territories. 1t is an authority which
arises, not necessarily from the terrific
rial clause of the constitution, but from
/ 81 hA
inability OF the states to act upon the
subject.
"Territory thus acquired can remain a
foreign country under the tariff laws only
upon one of two theories: Either that
the word foreign applies to such coun-
tries as were foreign at the time the
statute was enacted, notwithstanding any
subsequent change in their condition, or
| that they remain foreign under the tariff
laws until Congress has formally em-
braced them within the customs union
of the states. The first theory is obvious
ly untenable. While a statute is presumed
10 sneak from the time of its enactment
IL embraces all such persons or things as
subsequently fall within its scope, and
ceases to epply TO such as thereafter fall
without its scope. BY parity OF reasoning
a country ceases to be foreign the instant
| II becomes domestic.
both Foreign and Domestic.
.grhe theory that country remains for
eign with respect TO the tarih laws until
Congress has acted by embracing II with
I'm the customs union. presupposes that
a country may be domestic for one pur-
nose and foreign for another. II may
undoubtedly become necessary for an ad-
eouate administration OF a domestic ter
rttory to pass special act providing the
proper machinery and officers. as the
President would have no authority, except
under the war power, TO administer II