The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-05-27
Material Question Is Whether Porto
Rico and the Philippines Are Part
of the United States.
HAWAIIAN CASE IS SIMILAR
EXCEPT THAT THAT TERRITORY
WAS ANNEXED BY CONGRESS-,
While the Other InsuIar Possessions
Were Coded to the United States
by the Treaty of Paris.

WASHINGTON, May Glowing to the
fact that the United States Supreme Court
will adjourn tomorrow for the term the
belief is quite general that the court will
deliver its opinion in the insular cases
which were heard last winter. In view of
this probability Solicitor General Richards
has prepared unofficial statement show
ing the questions involved in the various
cases, which is as follows
"All these cases are virtually customs
cases. They raise the validity under the
Constitution of the following exactions:
First. Duties on goods imported into the
United States from the Philippines after
the ratification OF the treaty. The fourteen
diamond rings case Peke, claimant.
Porto Rico from the United States during
the military occupation of the island after
the signing of the protocol and before the
ratification of the treaty of Paris Such
were some OF the duties collected in the
Armstrong case
Third. Duties collected on goods i'm
ported into Porto Rico from the United
States during the military occupation but
after the concession of Porto Rico by the
ratification Of the treaty and before the the
duties were collected in the Armstrong
case and in the first Dooley case.
Fourth. Duties collected on goods inn
ported into the United States from Porto
Rico after the ratification of the treaty
and before the taking effect Of the Porto
Rican act Such were the duties exacted
Fifth. Duties collected on goods coming
into the United States from Porto Rico
after the Porto Rican act took effect. The
validity Of these exactions is brought In
question in the Downes case.
Sixth. Duties collected goods coming
into Porto Rico from the United States
after taking effect of the Porto Rican act.
Such were the duties exacted In the sec
ond Dooley case.
Seventh Duties collected on goods i'm
fnfO he
after the annexation and before the Haw-
allan act went into effect Such were the
duties in the Crossman case.
THE QUESTION OF JURISDICTION.
"The propriety of the course of proceed
ure Is in question in all these cases except
the fourteen diamond ring case. This re-
suits from the different methods adopted
by the counsel in testing the constitutions
ality of the customs exactions.
"In the Goetz and Crossman cases, the
duties were paid under protest and the
procedure laid down in the customs ad-
ministrative act was followed. This the
Government believes to be the proper
method. But X counsel in the cases TO be
mentioned are correct, then this course was
.In the De Lima and the Downes cases
the duties paid were paid under protest
and suit brought against the collector 10
recover back. This the government thinks
was wrong.
ssIn the Dooley cases and the Armstrong
cases the duties were paid under protest
and suit brought against the United States
to recover back, the Armstrong case being
brought in the Court of Claims and the
Dooley cases in the United States Circuit
Court This the government thinks was
wrong.
''If the iurisdictional points were sus-
tanned there would still remain the four
teen diamond rings case, the Goetz case
and the Crossman case, which raise the
fundamental question under the treaty,
but do not involve the validity or the
Porto Rican act
The material questions involved are:
''The primary question Is whether the
cession contained in the treaty OF Paris
integral part of the United States, within
the meaning Of the provision requiring All
duties imports and eXcises 10 be uniform
throughout the United States.
THE secondary question ard whether
the temporary revenue provision In the
Porto Rican act levylng duties on goods
coming from Porto Rico into the United
States and on goods coming from the
United States into Porto Rico, TO be used
for the benefit Of Porto Rico. until the
insular government could provide revenues
of its own violates the constitutional pro-
vision that no tax or duty shan be iaid on
articles exported from any States.
Like the primary question, is the ques-
ton raised in the Hawaiian case, namely.
whether the resolution of annexation made
Hawaii an integral part OF the United
States within the meaning OF the limitation
of the taxing clause, so that instantly our
customs laws applied there, notwithstand-
ing the express provision of the resolution
that the existing customs laws or the
Hawaiian republic should continue in force
until Congress should pass an act extend
ing our customs laws to the islands"