Evening star., 1901-05-27
But It is an Unorganized
Territory.
FORAKER ACT CONSTITUTIONAL
Porto Rico Not Within United
States for Tariff Purposes.
FULL POWER OF CONGRESS

The long expected decisions of the United
States Supreme Court in the insular cases
were handed down today by Justice Brown.
, The first opinion was based upon the DeI.ima
case. involving the right of the United
States to collect duties on sugars imported
into the United States from Porto Rico
in the summer of 1899 after the ratification
of the Paris treaty and before the passage
of the Porto RiCan act.
The opinion was clearly antagonistic to
the governments contention. the court
holding that duties could only be legiti-
mately collected on the theory that Porto
Rico was foreign territory. and the opinion
held that it was not such foreign territory
The court room was crowded to the utmost
and intense interest was manifested. Justice
McKenna delivered a dissenting opinion.
The intense public interest in the de-
cisions was manifested by the throngs
gathered within the Supreme Court room
filling every available point and overfowins
into the outer corridors. An hour before
the court net the semi-circular area open
IL the public was crowded. Secretary Root
arrived few minutes before the court
convened and was joined by Senator Lodge.
Within the area reserved for members of
the bar sat the officers of the government
chiefly interested IN the case. including At
torney General Knox, Solicitor General
Richards. Solicitor Penfeld of the State
Department. also many of the prominent
lawyers appearing for the several con-
testants.
Representative Grosvenor of Ohio and
Senator Lindsay of Kentucky. who has
taken a prominent part in the insuIar dis
cussions In Congress, were early arrivals
and secured point of vantage 20 the right
OF the justices. Senator Chandler, Repre-
sentative Richardson of Tennessee and ex-
Representative Bynum of Indiana were in
the crowd on the left. The wives Of sew
eral of the justices occupied AN area usual
ly closed, reserved for the Judicial families
and this was an assurance before the court
convened that the important decisions
would be forthcoming.
Exactly at - o'clock the black-robcd JUS
tices fled to their places. a fun bench
being present. The early opinions an
nounced did not relate to sne insu!ar cases
and the crowds waited eagerly.
The Special Case.
The decision hung upon the case coming
from the state of New York involving the
levying of duties on goods coming from
Porto Rico into the United States, the col
lection of such a tax having been upheld
In the lower court. The decision was In
effect, that territory acquired by the United
States is a part of the United States and
IS not foreign territory, and that such an
import duty could not be levied. The de-
cisiOn of the lower court was reversed
and the case remanded, with instructions
to reverse their decision in accordance
with this opinion.
This decision was rendered in the case of
H. ,.lai,
r. Bidwell, the case coming from the cir
cult court of the United States for the dis
trict Of New York. The conclusions of the
court in this case were summed up in the
following language:
S'FrOm this resume of the decisions Of
= this court the Instructions of the execu-
tive department and the above act OF Con-
gress. it is evident that from 1903, the date
of Mr.. Gallatin's letter, to the present time
there Is not shred of authority except the
dictUm In Fleming VS.. Page, for holding
that a district ceded TO and in the posses
sion OF the United States remains for any
purpose a foreign country. Both these con-
citions must exist to produce change of
nationality for revenue purposes. Posses
sion is not alone sufficient as was held in
Fleming VS.. Page. is a treaty ceding
such territory sufficient without surrender
of possession. The practice Of the execu-
tive department thus continued for more
than half a century is entitled to great
weight and should not be disregarded nor
overturned except for cogent reason and
unless il be clear that such construction be
erroneous.
But were this presented as original
question should be iInpelled irresistibly
to the same conclusion.
Power of a Treaty.
by article q section 2, of the Consttu-
tion, the President is given power. by and
with the advice and consent of the Senate
to make treaties, provided that two-thirdS
of the senators present concur; and by arti-
Gle 6. this Constitution and the Bylaws OF
the United States which shall be made In
pursuance thereof, and all treaties made
which shall be made under the authority
of the United States, shall be the supreme
law of the land. 1t will be observed that
distinction is made to the question
of supremacy between laws and treaties
except that both are controlled by the Con-
stitution- a law requires the assent oi
both houses of Congress, and except IN
certain specified cases the signature of the
President a treaty is negotiated and made
by the President, with the concurrence OF
two-thirds of the senators present but
each of them is the supreme law OF the
land.
LAS was said by Chief Justice Marshall
in the case of the Peggy: Where a treaty
is the law of the land and as such affects
the rights of parties litigating In courts
that treaty much binds those rights
and is much to be regarded by the court
as an act of Congress And in Foster agt
-. Nelson. he repeated this in substance:
Our Constitution declares a treaty to be