Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1901-01-14
ARE THEY u. S.
EXPORTER SAYS 1T
BRINGS HIM AND HIS GOODS
ON FREE LIST.


involving the connection of the United
States with the insular possessions, the
case of George w. Crossman ct al, APP
pellants VS. the United States was called.
This case is one covering the entry of
goods from Hawaii, consisting of whis-
ky, brandy and jam, at the custom house
at New York, April 26. 19Oo and is the
only Hawaiian case in the list. Duty was
assessed under the provisions of the
Dingley law.
Mr.. Wickham Smith presented the case
for the appellants. He laid down the
his clients rely: Il
1. At the time of the importation Of
these goods the Hawaiian islands, hav-,
ing been, by the action of congress, APP
proved by the president, annexed as part
OF the territory of the United States,
were not a foreign country within any
sense of that term and certainly not
within the sense of that term as used in
the enacting clause of the Dingley tariff
act.
2. The action of congress in providing
in the joint resolution of annexation that
the customs reations of the Hawaiian is
lands with the United States and with
other countries, should remain unchang-
ed until congress should further legislate
upon the subject, was a violation of the
provision of the constitution, that "all
duties. imposts and excuses shall be uni
form throughout the United States"
3. AS such joint resolution provided for
the collection at the ports of the Ha-
waiian islands of duties upon articles sent
thither from other ports of the United
States, this was in effect a violation of
section of the resolution that no tax
or duty shall be laid on articles exported
from any state.
Counsel argued that this case was not
like others before the court recently, for
the reason that there was no question
involved as to the force of a treaty, the
government of Hawaii having coded it's
sovereignty to the United States which
cession congress ratified. There is no
question on this point. The language of
the annexation act provides that the is
lands were annexed las part of the ter
ritory Of the United States
Mr. Smith then argued that in the five
places where the words United States
We're used in the constitution with one
exception, the term includes the states
and territories. The exception is that
clause providing for the election of presi-
Dental electors After considering the
application of the naturalization or
bankruptcy laws in territories and states
alike, counsel said:
"A long line of decisions by this court
that certain fundamental limitations
upon the power of congress contained in
the constitution are in force in various
territories of the United States are dis
posed of by those on the other side of
this controversy by the statement that
the constitution operates in these terri
| tories because congress has seen fit to
| extend it to them by it's own act. In
! othey words, they advance the doctrine
| that the constitution has no force or
| operation in any territory until congress
| puts it there and, of course, this logically
| implies that it only extends there to the
| extent to which congress puts it there
| and can remain there only so long
congress chooses to permit In other
| words, those who hold that congress put
| the constitution into the territories cam
not escape from maintaining that con-
gress has power at any time to take the
constitution out of the territories. If
! the constitution operates today in Ari-
| Zona, New Mexico and Oklahoma only
| because congress has chosen to extend
| it to those territories, it must be within
| the power of congress tomorrow to enact
| that the constitution shall no longer be
| operative in any of it's parts in these
| territories. Indeed. it is question
whether congress would need even to go
through that performance. counsel
| then said that cases had been cited
wherein it was held that countries cap
tured in war or ceded by treaty could
| be held as foreign until congress had
| .legsated to define their status This, he
said would not help the government in
this case, as the islands were not con-
quered or annexed by treaty but by
! legislative act. He said further, upon
what authority can territory be held
after congress has by joint resolution
annexed them as a part of the territory
of the United States to be a country
foreign to the United States? 1t is true
congress has not so fully and completely
legislated with reference to the islands
| as it might and did do thereafter but it
has certainly legislated enough to make
| them cease to be foreign. 1t had not
only annexed them as part of the
territory of the United States, but it
had provided that the revenue FROM
or proceeds of, public lands thereof
might be used for the civil, military or
naval purposes of the United States:
it had authorize the president to vest
the civil and judicial powers in such
| persons, to be exercised in such man.
ner as he might direct. 1t had, in eff
feet. repealed so much of the municipal
| legislation of said islands as was con-
trary to the constitution of the United
States. 1t had prohibited Chinese from
coming in the islands to the United
States, and it had appropriated out of
| the treasury of the United States $780,
600 to carry out the provisions of the
joint resolution. Is it to be said for
one minute that all these things Were
done with reference to a foreign cOun-
| try? Let those who maintain the other
side of this controversy point out q
single instance in the history of the