Evening bulletin. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1895-1912, 1901-07-24


by that court, the decisions of which
are the supreme law of the land. bind
ing as well upon the Supreme Court
of this Territory as upon this Cour..
The Peacock case and the first Ed
wards cases we're decided by the Su
preme Court of the Republic of Hawaii
upon the theory that the case of Flefh-
ing v. Page, 8 Haw., u. $. SOB, in its
opinion by Chief Justice fancy held
that duties did not accrue to the Uni.
led States in her newlt acquired Terri
tories until provision was made by Act
of Congress for their collection and Tor
collection districts. and the further
theory that the subsequent case Of
Gross v. Harrison. 16 How U. s. lGf.
did not modify or override the case OF
Fleming e. Page. In fact, our Supreme
Court sought to distinguish the later
case and to hold It not applicable. In
other words. our Supreme Court reiie1
upon the authority of Fleming V. Page
and repudiated the case of Cross V.
Harrison as mere dictum. Tho Su
preme Court of the United States.
however. in De Lima V. Bidwell. In the
opinion of the Court t21 Supreme
Court Reporter, pages 7I7.754) have
held the reverse to be true and have
decided that the case of Fleming v.
Page on the point lin question was
mere dctum and was practically or.
erruled in Cross V. Harrison" I'D. p.
1927. II the case relied upon by our
Supreme Court (Fleming V. Page) was
practically overruled in Cross v. Har.
rison." and our Supreme Court refused
10 follow Cross v. Harrison, OF what
value now is the reasoning" or the
conclusion of our Supreme Court In
the Peacock case and the first Edwards
cases? The statement of the case con-
tains the answer. for II follows as does
night the day that the Supreme Court
of the Republic of Hawaii has been
overruled in its reasoning and conclu.
sion based upon the authority of a
case which has been overruled by the
Supreme Court Of the United States
In fact. the learned Attorney Gen
eral seems to concede by his argum snt
and in fact expressly conceded to this
Court, in answer to question by the
Court. that this Court should not p "
any attention to the Peacock case.
uV Souit VI th' Sbh'Vu
States Court say, In the opinion of the
court in De Lima v. Bidwell i'd. p.
74S). In speaking of the case OF Cross
". Harrison, supra, that latter the rati.
fication of the treaty. California be.
came part of the United States" and
became instantly bound and privi.
legged" by the tariff laws of the United
States. The court further said that
"To the objection that no collection
districts had been established In Cali
fornia and in apparent dissent from
the views of the Chief Justice In Elem.
ing V. Page. he added Up. 1856. l.. ed.
1927. 1T was urged that our revenue
laws covered only so much OF the Ter
ritory of the United States az had
been divided into collection districts,
and that out OF them no authority hal
been given to prevent the landing Ut
foreign goods or to charge duties upon
them. though such landing had been
made within the territorial limits Of
the United States. To this II may be
successfully replied that collection dis.
tricts and ports of entry are no more
than designated localities within and
at which Congress had extended a lib
erty OF commerce in the United States
and that so much of its territory as
was not within tany collection district
must be considered as having been
withheld from that liberty" The court
further says that the court in Cross v
| Harrison seemed to take an entirely
different view of the facts connected
with the admission of those Territories
f,.,, lao hnl an To-, IL,
v. Page" and that The doctrine that
port coded to and occupied by us
does not lose its foreign character un
til Congress has acted and a collector
Is appointed was distinctly repudiated
with the apparent acquiescence OF
Chief Justice fancy, who wrote the
opinion in Fleming v. Page and still re
manned the Chief Justice of the
Court" The Court then states that
"lhe practice and rulings of the Elk
ecutive Department with respect Il
the status of newly acquired Terri
tories prior to such status being set
tied by acts Of Congress. Is, with 9
single exception, strictly In line with
the decision of this court in Cross v
Harrison, l6 How. 1914" and then goes
fully into the rulings as to Louisiana
Florida, Texas, California and Alaska
The court then states:
From this resume of the decision!
of this court, the instructions of tn,
Executive Departments. and the abov'
acts Of Congress, II Is evident tina
from 1903, the date of Mr.. Gallatin,
letter, to the present time, there is no
a shred OF authority except the dictun
In Fleming v. Page practically over
ruled In Cross v. Harrison) for holdin,
that district coded to and in posses
sion OF the United States remains TO
any purposes foreign country. Boil
these conditions must exist to produc,
a change of nationality for revenu,
purposes" The court then states
But were this presented as an orig
inal question we should be impelle,
irresistibly to the same conclusion.
I'D. p. 1929 -
The court then proceeds to stat
that by tne ratification Of the treat.
of Paris the Island became territory o
the United States" stating also tina
IA country ceases to be foreign tn
instant 1t becomes domestic"
THE theory that a country remain
foreign with respect to the tariff law
until Congress has acted by embracin
1t within the customs union presuI
poses that a country may be domestl
for one purpose anu foreign for anoti
err. 1t may undoubtedly become nece,
sary, for the adequate administrator
of domestic Territory, to pass a sp,
cial act providing the proper machil
cry and officers, as the Presiden
would have no authority, except unde
the war power, to administer 1t hin