Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1901-05-28
OUR TERRITORY.
{continued from page ~

mort duties could not be leVieu. ihe oc
cision of the lower court was reversed.
Justice Brown announced in the be-
Ginning of his decision that the court
undoubtedly has jurisdiction in TINS
-nse He said the case raised the single
question whether territory acquired by
~. United States by cession from q
foreign power remained foreign
country" within the meaning OF the
tariff laws and added:
..The question involved in this case
Is not whether the sugars were import
able articles under the tariff laws but
whether coming as they did from a
mort alleged to be domestic. they were
imported from a foreign country-in
other words, whether they are import
ed at all as that word is defined III
Woodruff VS.. Parham.
Eve think the decision in the Fas-
sett case is conclusive to the effect that
II the question could not be raised be-
fore the board of general appraisers.
and that whether they were imported
merchandise for the reason givn in the
Fassett case that q vessel is not an
importable article or because the mer-
chandise was not brought from for
eign country is immaterial. In either
case the article is not imported.
"Conceding that Section BOIL has
been repealed and that no remedy eX-
lists under the customs administrative
act, does it follow that no action what
ever will lie? If there be an admitted
wrong. the courts will look far to sup
ply an adequate remedy. If an action
lay at common law, the repeal of
nd coil ting
ceedings in customs cases Chat is.
turning upon the classification of mer-
chandise) to make way for another
proceeding before the board of general
appraisers in the same class of cases,
did not destroy the right of action that
might have existed as to other than
customs cases. and the fact that by
Section 25 no collector shall be liable
for or on account of any rulings or
decisions as to the classiflcations OF
such merchandise or the duties charg-
cd thereon. or the collection of any
duties, charges or duties on or on ac-
count Of any such mercha ndise. or any
other matter which the importer might
have brought before the board of gen
eral appraisers. does not restrict the
right which the owner of the merchan-
disc might have against the collector
in cases not falling within the customs
administrative act.
IF the position of the government
he correct. the plaintiff would be rem
ediless and if q collector should seize
and hold for duties good; brought
from New Orleans or any other con-
Cededly domestic port to New York.
there would be no method of testing
l..
hardly possible that the owner could
be placed in this position"
After citing numerous opinions and
authorities to show that the action of
the plaintiffs in error was properly
brought, the court holds that whether
these cargoes of sugar We're subject to
duty depends solely upon the question
whether Porto Rico was foreign
country at the time the sugars We're
shipped, since the tariff act of July "a
1897. commonly known as the Dingley
act, declares that there shall be levied
collected and paid upon all articles i'm
ported from foreign countries certain
duties therein specified. a foreign
country was defined by Mr.. Chief JUS
tice Marshall and Mr.. Justice Story to
be exclusively within the sovereignty
of foreign nation and without the
sovereignty of the United States.
The status of Porto Rico was this:
THE island had been for some
months under military occupation by
the United States rs conquered coun-
try. when by the second article of the
treaty of peace between the United
States and Spain signed Dec. TO- 1888.
and ratified April IL. 1899. Spain coded
to the United States the island of Por-
to Rico, which has ever since remain
ed in our possession and has been
governed and administered by us.
IF the case depends solely upon
these facts and the question were
broadly presented whether Il country
which had been coded to us the cerSiOn
accepted. possession delivered and the
island occupied and administered with
out interference by Spain or any other
power. was n foreign country or do
nestle territory, it would scam that
there could be as little hesitation in
answering this question as there would
he in determining the ownership Of a
house decided in fec simple to a pur-
chaser who had accepted the deed.
gone into possession. paid taxes and
made improvements without let or
hindrance from his vendor.
But it is earnestly insisted by the
government that it never could have
been the intention of Congress to adj
nit Porto Rico into o customs union
with the United States. and that while
the island may be to a certain extent
domestic territory, it still remains q
foreign country under the tariff laws
until Congress has embraced it within
the general revenue system
The court then discussed similar
cases arising from previous acquisition
of territory by the United States, re-
viewing former decisions of the court
involving questions such as are pre-
scented in this case. The possessions in
connection which the main question in
volvcd in this case has arisen are
Louisiana, Florida, Texas, California
and Alaska. The court presented its
conclusions as follows:
LAS showing the construction put
upon this question by the legislative
department we need only to add thai
Section of the Foraker act makes 9
distinction between foreign countries
and Porto Rico by enacting that the
same duties shall be paid upon all ar.
ticles imported into the United States
from foreign countries.
From this resume of the decisions
~.