Arizona republican., 1901-11-16

the United States on the status of the Philippines, in the STATUS absence of legislation. OF THE which will be rem PHILIPPINES. dered soon. is awaited with no less interest than was occasioned by the uncer- tsinty as to Porto Rico before the de-
 cision in that case. The decision will settle the question whether the Philip
 pine islands are a part of the United
 States in the sense that the govern
 ment may not collect a tariff on goods
 brought from the islands to the United
 States. This is the question involved
 i2 the fourteen diamond rings" case. It will determine the validity of the
 proclamation made by the president imposing Q schedule of tariffs on the commerce between Manila and the
 United States after the signing Of the treaty Of Paris and before any legisla- ton had been passed by congress.
 The fourteen diamond rings contro- versy were brought to this country by an enlisted man in the First regiment. North Dakota volunteers. He served
 
 a little speculation in diamonds. He bought several and others he secured from comrades who pawned then to him. Returning with his regiment July 31. 1899. he was mustered out at the PresidIo ct San Francisco and went from there to his home in Wahpeton, \. D. He had the diamonds with him I omitted to declare them or to pay any duty.
 He went from Wahpeton to Chicago, where. upon his arrival. customs of fcer seized him and his rings on the ground that the latter were smuggled. The district attorney brought suit Tn the district court of northern Illinois and the case was tried before Judge Christian C. Kohlsaat. The defendant claimed that the Philippines were a part of the United States, and that un- der the constitution the government had no right to levy duty goods brought from one part of the United States to another part of the same.
 The court held that for the purposes of tariff the Philippine archipelago was foreign territory, and declared the property forfeited in accordance with the law governing smuggled goods From this decision appeal was taken to the supreme court.
 In the De Lima case, decided last spring, the supreme court held that congress had authority to legislate for territorial possessions, but it declared that the duties levied on merchandise Porto Rico between the date when the Paris treaty was signed and the For aker act was passed were illegal and they have since been refunded. Until the Spooner amendment was passed there was no congressional legislation touching the Philippines, and the tar fir was imposed by decree of the pres ident
 It remains to be seen whether the supreme court will find a difference between the Philippines and Porto Rico. permitting tariff in the former while finding it illegal in the latter
 The main difference in the actua, conditions lies in the fact that Porto Rico accepted our authority peacefully. while the Filipinos have been in open resistance which has amounted to state of war.
 The Spooner amendment, passed just at the close of last session, gives the president power to exercise, through appointees, judicial. civil and military functions in the Philippines. This act has not yet come before the courts for adjudication as to it's constitution ality.