The Honolulu republican. [volume] (Honolulu, T.H.) 1900-1902, 1901-08-11
FULL TEXT Of !. s. sUPREME COURT
DECISION II THE INsULIR GlSEs
Icontiussd from TAira P.s.-l

provide q territorial government I
The great iaw OF necessity. says
Mr.. Buchanan, fustihes this coz
clusIon- The consent Of the people
Is irresistibiy inferred from the fact
that 10 civilized community could
possibly desire 70 abTogate an exist
gng government, when the alternative
presented woaid be 70 place them
selves n a state of anarchy, beyond
the protection o. ali laws. and reduce
them 70 the unhappy necessity o.
submitting 20 the dominion Of the
strongest These letters vii be al
lnded TO hereafter In treating Of the
action of the executive departments
The court further held IN this case
that after the ratification Of the
treaty. California became part Of
the United States. or q cededs con
0uered. territory that, as there Is
nothing differently stipulated N the
treaty with respect 10 commerce X
became instantly bound and priFiieg-
ed by the laws which Congress had
passed 70 raise a revenue from duties
or imports and tonnage; that tp-
1871 the territory had been ceded
as a conquest, and was 20 be presefy-
ed and governed as such until the
sovereignty TO which il had passed
mad Iegislated for T. That sovereign
" was the United States. under the
Constitution, by which power had
been given 10 Congress 10 dispose Of
and make ali needful rules and regu
lasions respecting the territory or
other property belonging TO the Uni
hi. fafqr
eminent OF California. organized as
Il was from a right Of conquest, did
not cease or become defunct In conse-
quence OF the signature Of the treaty,
or from its ratincation, and that
until Congress legislated for il. the
duty upon foreign goods imported in
10 san Francisco were legally deman-
ded and lawfully received by Mr.. Har-
rison."
To the objection that no collection
districts had been established in Cal
ifornia and In apparent dissent from
the views OF the Chief Justice IN
Fleming V. Page, he added Cd. 1861:
1T was urged that our revenue laws
covered only so much Of the territory
OF the United States as had been div
ided into collection districts. and that
ont OF them no authority had been
given to prevent the landing OF for
eign goods or TO charge duties upon
them. though such landing had been
made within the territorial limits OF
the United States To this 1t may
be successfully replied, that collec-
ton districts aud portS of entry are
no more than designated localities
within and at which Congress had
extended a liberty OF commerce in
the United States. and that so much
OF its territory as was not within any
collection district must be considered
as having been withheld from that
liberty. II is very well understood 10
he a part OF the laws of nations that
each nation may designate. upon its
own terms. the ports and places with
in its territory for foreign commerce,
and that any attempt to introduce for
eign goods elsewhere. within its juris-
diction Is a violation of its sover-
eighty. Il is not necessary that such
should be declared in terms, or by
any decree OF enactment. the express
ed allowance being the limit OF the
liberty given to foreigners TO trade
with such nation.
The court also cited the cases OF
Louisiana and Florida, and seemed
20 take an entirely different view OF
the facts connected with the admis-
sion OF those territories from what
had been taken in Fleming v. Page.
The opinion. which is quite n long
one. establishes the three following
propositions: ca That under the war
power the military governor OF Cali
fornia was authorized 10 prescribe a
scale OF duties upon importations
from foreign countries to San Fran
cisco. and to collect the same through
a collector appointed by himself. IN
al the ratification of the treaty of
peace Co That after ratification
duties were legally exacted under the
tariff laws Of the United States. which
took effect Immediately. go That
the civil government established in
California continued from the neces-
stiles Of the case until Congress pro
yided territorial government.
Il viii be seen that the three pro-
positions involve a recognition OF the
fact that California became domestic
territory Immediately upon the rati-
fcation OF the treaty. or. to speak
more accurately. IS soon as this was
oficiaily known in California The
doctrine that port ceded to and oe.
cupied by as does not lose its foreign
character until Congress has acted
and a collector IS appointed. was dis.
tinctiy repudlafea with the apparent
aoquiesoenee Of Chief Justice Taney
who wrote the opinion IN Fleming Y
Page. and st;li remained the Chiel
Justice OF the court The opinion
does not involve directly the question
al issue In this case, whether goods
carried from 3 port in a ceded terri
tory directly 20 New York are sub
iect % duties. since the duties II
Cross v. Harrison we're exaeted upor
foreign goods imported into SSx
Francisco as an American port; bat i
is Impossible 10 escape the logical In
ferenee from that case that goods ear
ried from San Francisco 70 New fors
after the ratification q the treaty
would not be considered As imported
from q foreign eountry.
The practise and ratings az the
executive departments with respect
N fha stains ~ s,5sfets- ss.,s4tf~ae tar,