The Savannah morning news., 1901-01-08
CIVIL OR MILITARY
JURISDICTION OVER OUR INsULAR
POSSESSIONS.
ARGUMENT BEGINS TO-DAY.
OPPOSING BRIEFS FILED BY COUN-
Sell YESTERDAY.

Solicitor General Richards and EN-
Secretary Carlisle the Legal Giants
Who VIII Contend for the Mastery.
MIR. Richards Quotes From EN-
President HRrrisOn's Recent
Speech, and Says Government Has
Never Asserted Power of Congress
to "DcspOt" i'm Porto Rico.
Washington, Jan. 7.-Solictior General
Richards, in behalf of the government, to-
day flied in the United States Supreme
Court a brief in the cases brought by
Elias 5. A. Delima, Samuel b. Downes,
Henry w. Dooley, Carlos Armstrong and
George w. Crossman against either
George r. Bidwell, collector of the port
of New York or the United States di
rectly all involving questions of the tax
alton relative between the United States
and our insular possessions.
The cases, argument in which will be-
sin tomorrow, cover the several phases
of the dominion of the United States
over the islands before and after the rat
ification of the Paris treaty of peace and
after legislation by Congress with ref
erence to them. The feature of the briei
is the direct notice it takes of an address
made by ex-President Harrison at Ann
Arbor and the response made thereto in
behalf of the administration.
The Delima case concerns duties col
lected on sugars imported into New York
from Porto Rico after ratification of the
Paris peace treaty and before the pass
age of the Porto Rican act; the Downes
case duties on oranges brought from Porto
Rico into New York after the passage of
the Porto Rican act; the two Dooley cases
and the Armstrong case duties on goods
imported from Porto Rico during military
occupation and partly before and partly
after the ratification of the treaty, and
also after passage of the Porto Rican tar
iff act, and the Crossman case
duties on liquors imported from
Honolulu into New York after the
passage of the resolution anneXing the Hd-
waiian Islands, and before the passage of
the act providing for their government.
The brief denies the doctrine of ex pro-
prio vigore and that all the limitations
of the constitution apply everywhere
Throughout the scope of the authority of
the government, but says that there are
limitations in the constitution which do
apply throughout both the states aud ter
ritores organized and unorganized. being
| properly such as secure the blessings Of
| justice and liberty to all people
! Referring to ex-President Harrison, So
| licitor General Richards brief says;
I'm a recent address, a distinguished
/ statesman and lawyer affects to believe
| that If the view of the government is cor
rect, Congress could. without eonstitu-
! tional objection, pass a Porto Rican act
providing for a number of shocking
things. The government has never as
serted and does not believe that Congress
has the power to despot in Porto Rico
If the first ten amendments do not limit
by direct application, Congress in legis-
latng for our new possessions, neither do
they operate within the states which com
pose the Union.
Protection to life, liberty and prop
erty rests primarily with the states"
Various decisions of the Supreme Court
are cited. The constitution forbids the
states to pass any bill of attainder
ex post facto law, or law impairing the
obligation OF contracts, or to grant any
title of nobility. and the fourteenth
amendment provides that no state shall
deprive any person of life, liberty or
property without due process of law, nor
deny to any person within its jurisdic-
ton the equal protection of the laws but
outside the range of these limitations the
people of the state, through its constitu-
tion and laws, are supreme.
There were no grand juries, no petit
juries, no machinery for Furnishing crime
by the processes of the Anglo-Saxon law.
and yet, if the limitations intended for
the states at once of their own force APP
piled in these new possessions, crime could
he punished in no other way. The con-
stitution did not leave the national gov
ernment helpless by demanding impoesi-
bilities.
The brief on the question of the validity
of the duties assessed and collected on
the several importations involved follows
the general lines of the argument here
tofore made by Attorney General Griggs.