The Honolulu republican. [volume] (Honolulu, T.H.) 1900-1902, 1901-08-11

SfGH ar1 1r4Sz e7es&s ECUEk1DEE Gales
temporary aEIzEs4Eee. wniEh Is aze
frcz 4 conqzere5 eHeuy. whsn ~
xzFren5erz u = Ecrr@ 1AkxA - Il n
able q resist
This vas clearly q sns7eieax re4s1n
for alspcsfnE q the case adversely
70 the importer. hnt the lezxned
Chief Jaz<fce proceeded 20 pr the
case apoa another zT0znd that there
wxs I'd act q C0agress establishing :
custom hoEse AZ TaMpfco. nor a.
teorszsnE the appoinf1ent Of 4 colsec-
ozeeF Of tie Tafte5 States authorised
b. taw 20 grant the ciearance sn6 ar
Shsntieste TIE coatsing manifest
& the cargo IN the manner
direcsed b Law. where the
vuvage Is from ore port Of the United
States 70 another. thas the onIy col
Iecter Was one appolnted by the mill
tsry commander. and that = coast
ing manifest granted ny him coul net
be recognised Ia the United States
rs the document required BY iaw.
when the vessel Is engaged IN me
eoasting trade. nor exempt the cargo
from the payment OF duties. He
states thar this construction u tbs
tariff laws had been uniformly given
by the administrative department OF
the Government. and cited the case
Of Florida. after it had been cedesi 70
the United States and the military
forces had taken possession OF Pen
sacOla: That is. that. although
Florida had BY cession actually be
come a part Of the United States.
and vas in our possession. vet. under
our revenue laws. its ports must be
regarded as foreign until they were
established as domestic. by acts Of
Congress. And il appears that this
decision was sanctioned at the time
by the Attorney General of the United
States. the law officer OF the Govern
ment. And. although not so directly
applicable TO the case before rs yet
the decisions OF the Treasury Depart
ment in relation TO Amelia Island. and
certain ports in Louisiana, after that
province had been ceded to the Uni
ted States. we're both made upon the
same grounds And in the iates case.
after a custom house had been es-
tablished by law, g Stat. 41S,1 at
New Orleans. the collector at that
place was instructed to regard as
foreign ports Ration Rouge and other
settlements still in the possession OF
Spain. whether on the Mississippi.
Iberville or the seacoast. TIE de-
partment. in no instance that We are
aware Of. since the establishment of
the Government, has ever recognized
a place in a newly acquired country
as a domestic port. from which the
coasting trade might DC carried on,
unless it had been previously made so
by act of Congress-
While we see no reason to doubt
the conclusion of the court that the
port of Tampico was still q foreign
port, it is not perceived why the fact
that there was no act of Congress cs-
taolishing custom house there or
authorizing the appointment of a col
lector, should have prevented the col-
lector appointed by the military COM
mander from granting the usual do
cuments required TO be issued to a
vessel engaged in the eoasting trade.
a collector though appointed by a
military commander, may be presum-
ed to have the ordinary power of a
collector under an act of Congress.
with authority to grant clearances to
ports within the United States.
though. of course, he would have no
power to make a domestic port of
what was in reality a foreign port.
1t is not intended to intimate that
the cases of United States V. Rice and
Fleming V. Page are not harmonious.
In fact, they are perfectly consis-
tent with each other. In the first
case it was merely held that duties
could not be collected upon goods
brought into a domestic port during
a temporary occupation by the enc
my. though the enemy subsequently
evacuated it; in the latter case. that
the temporary military occupation by
the United States of foreign port
did not make it domestic port. and
that goods imported into the United
States from that port were still sub
ject TO duty. 1t would have been OBJ
viously unjust in the Rice case to i'm
pose duty upon goods which might
already have paid duty to the Brit
ISL commander. It would have been
equally unjust in the Fleming case
TO exempt the goods from duty BY
reason of our temporary occupation
of the port without a formal cession
of such port to the United States.
The next case is that OF Cross '.
Harrison. t16 How. 164.l This was
an action of assumpsit to recover
back moneys paid to Harrison while
acting as collector at the port OF San
Francisco for tonnage and duties up
on merchandise imported from for
eign countries into California between
February 2. 1s4S-the date OF the
treaty Of peace between the u
States and Mexico-and November Ia.
lS4s. when the collector appointed !
oy the President according to an act |
OF Congress passed March 3. 1S4s} en-
tered upon his duties. PLAINTIFFS in |
sisted that until such collector had |
been appointed. California was and /
continued to be after the date OF the /
treaty foreign territory. and hence 1
that no duties were payable as up /
on an importation into the United /
States. The plaintiffs proceeded M.
on the theory. stated in the siictnm IN 4
Fleming Y. Page. that duties had new
eT been held to accrue to the United i
States in her newly acquired Terri