The Houston daily post. [volume] (Houston, Tex.) 1886-1903, 1901-12-03

a apopIed Ny congress, nor Ike that Of
fnptu ~, lS'AS, in respect TO Cuba pre-
llnhnaly To the declaration Of war. bnt
Stter lliie has passed by ratified -cessiou.
IL ~ absolutely without legal sfgnidcsncr
on lhe question before us The meanlpg
~ tho treaty can not he controlled he
subsequent explanations OF some OF those
Nuu may nave voted 10 raufv H. What
view the house might have taken AZ 10 tho
Intention Of the senate In ratlhcatlon ~
me treaty We are not noiincd. nor Is it
mntHial, aud II any Implication from the
action referred IL could propcrly he in
uuiAad in " would seem 10 be that two.
lhlrdS OF quorum of the senate did not
Consent to tho ratification on the grouud
'lt is further coutended that a dIstiuc-
ton exists 10 that white complete nossps.
sion CT Porto Rico was taken bv the United
StAtes VI was not 50 as 60 the Philippines,
nNehnSe ~ armed resistance Of the native
inn9hitants to o greater or lesser extent
We must dccliuc 10 assume that the
government wishes thus 10 dsparago tho
conquest,
"1he sovereignty Of Spain over the Fhu
lpptueS, and possession under claim OF title
had existed for u long series OF wears prior
10 the war with the United States. The
,a7t That there wcrr insurrcctions against
her or thar uucirilged tribes may hive
deucd hcr win did not ancct the validity
Of her title. Snc granted Tho Islands 80
the United states aud the grantee in ne.
ccptluE look not less than tho whole grant
" those Instructions against Spain con
tiuuod In iusuuectlon against INC United
states The legal title pud possession Of the
lGttor remained unaffected.
I'VE did NOT understand that n Is claimed
that in carrying on the pending hostiiit'cs
ihc government Is seeking TO suhiugRtc
the people al n foreign country, hut on
the contrary that 90 is preserving order
and supproseing insWrertion lu the TORT
tory 81 the United suites II follows thar
tac possession of the United states =
adequate possession undor legal title aud
this can not he asserted Tor one purpose
and denied FOR unothey
I'VE dismiss the suggested distinction an
unteuablr. Hat IL Is soight 20 dctinct from
| che weight Of The ruling IN the DC Lima
VS. Rldwel case hccause one OF the Eva
| justices conourripg in tho judgment in that
| case, copeurrcd in the Judgment h
..In De Lima VS.. RldwelT. Porte Rice wat
/ held not 10 b. foreign country after TINS
cession and that prior act eNc!usiyely ap'
| rlcAhle TO forGAyn countries became IN
applicable.
q majority OF the court was that On act
OF congress leyying duties on goods i'm.
/ ported from Porto Rico Into New YORK
/ not Ia conformity with the provisions OF
| tho Constitution In respect TO the lmpqs'
/ ton OF duties imposts ana sehclsfs, Wbs
| valid. -Four Of the members of the court
! Glssonted from and five conCurrod, though
| no one on the same grounds m thls con
! Clurinn, The Justice who delivered the
opinion In De tima's case was one OF INC
minority aud WAS ~ the opinion that al,
! though by tho ccssiou Porto Rico ce5seN
! to be a foreign country ana became tel
| rftorv Of the United states and domestic,
vet that it WAS merely 1ppurtepAnI vi
ritory and not part Of She uniteg sthte:
within the clauses OF me Sonsutg.'o ",
| This view placcd the territory. though not
| foreign. outside OF restriction appicable 70
| interstate commerce and treated me pow
of congress when afhrmatlVely eAelIlsVu
/ over a territory situated as supposed, ~
uncontrolled by the provisions o. the zoe
.fitution in ~cspcct of National taxatlon'
fIpe distinction was drawn pelWcen spu
| cial act in respect of the particular conu'
j nv and general and prior act only ap'
| nlicable TO countries foreign TO OUTS ~
pyefy sense. The latter was Obliged 70
conform 70 the rule Of ~ uh mo rnIner,
"ES'rbe Tuiing in the case Of De Lima re-
| p,nined unaffected aud controls tnat un'
der ccnsiderosiGn ,e n1% 10" Of the majority
| II, the Do lima case were OF me, opinion
| that Porto Rico became by the ~ son sun
| ,"rt IA the exercise Of Sovernmental power
in The levy OF duties until restricted pS con-
i.nccrne reversed and cause remanded'
with directions to ggaRfith 'hs shirs nnd Me.
Kenna united In dissenting from tho eou.t
| rniulon in the Philippine case.g slXlpS ines
dlsscnted for the reasons s,a,ea ~ t Ala
| opinions In the eases Of De Lima ls. bin,
| ,lon DooIey VS. The United states and
| Downes w. Bidwell In the last term OF the
In tho pooley cases. involving the copsti'
! tution9lIty Of the law ot April W. nrcEld,
| ing Tor the collection Of duty Qp arAlelfs
| sbipped from the United states INTO ferto
! Rico. the decision was rendered ny jus
n,iire Browns opinion held thut as
| Porto Rico rs not foreign territory, tne
goods shipped 20 Porto Rico are NOT *
| ported hut whether exports or Imports tns
! Wide range OF congress In the matter OF
| taxation was sufficient for a. eoaungensy
Of this character. Al best; he 'ssin .Ntpe
duty was 4 temporary eHpedIent. and as y
| was explicitly provided In the Foraker, ae.
! that the Porto Rieau legislature eouiu
| change the character Of the enactment w
| v,ns held that the Foraker act was merely
Legislation IN the Interest OF Porto hieS.
! Ibe Foraker act was sustained IN the
! Grounds lads down in the uownes cage
| and Of the insular cases declded at the last
term The decision Of the lower court was
JnstIee Brown explicitly said that the
! onipIon was not 70 be construed ~ tusti-
nation Of export duties. Justiee White
CONQUERED In the result. but delivered an
independent decision.
The chief Justice and Justices Harlan,
| Hrewer and Peckham united In a dissent
ING oDInIon To the Dooley case, which was
handed down by the chief 1ustice. They
held that the duty imposed was export In
character and that the fact that u was
levied for the benefit OF Porto Rico did not
change It's character.