New-York tribune., 1901-12-03

the theory that country remains lofS3Sh "fN--
respect to the tariff laws until Congress mss
acted by embracing il within the customs iHF
opinion then continued as follows:
No reason is perceived for any different ruilhg
as TO the Philippines By the third article OF
the treaty Spain .ceded to the United states
''the archipelago known as me rninppi.e @ ~ -
ands'' and the United States agreed 10 pay 10
Spain the sum of $40, 100000 within thrte
months. The treaty was ratifled: congress al,
propriated the money; the ratthca1lon NdS 49,, p
claimed The treaty making power, the execu-
tive power, the legislative power, cohcuiieu Al
the completion CT the TRANSACTION. ,
The Philippines thereby ceased IN tne a Ia
euage of the treaty, Ito be Spanish Ceaslns
to be Spanish they ceased TO be foreign souh
try. They under the compleee dHu a.
solute sovereignty and dominion OF the Sliteu
States and so became the territory OK the Ci,i's 60
States over which civil government couIo "
esta blshed The result was the same, althouSh
there was no stiputation that the native ihHaoi-
tants should be incorporated into 'ie pous
pelitic and none securing &c them the fisht "
choose their nationality Their allegiance De-
came due to the United States. and they became
entitled TO its protection
SENATE RESOLUTION OF NO EFFECT
But it is said that the case OF the fninp nn
pines is to be distinguished from dhat Q. Eo ~ ~
Rico because on February IA. 1893 aIter tns
ratification of the treaty, the Senate resolved
that by the ratification of the treaty OF p. psate
With Spain it is not INTENDED 10 iIcoi po.a 80
.le inhabitants of the Philippine Islands INTO
citizenship of the United States, etc. nor "
permanently annex these Islands. o-ra..
We need not consider the force ana eaecl
of a resolution of this sort. if adopted by Con.
gress not like that Of April ~, 1898. IN rsspec.
of Cuba preliminary 10 the declaration OF war
but after title had passed by ratihed cessioh.
il is enough that this was joint resoiutloh,
IN mat m 1t was as aaoptzo Pb .ne Of Quorum and
that it is absolutely without legal slsnllcahce
on the question before US. The meaning oI
the treaty cannot be controlled py suDseuueii'
explanations of some of those who may have
voted TO ratify il. What view the House rnlsnl
have taken as to the intention of the Senate
i'm F9-i vino he
nor is it material, and if any implication from
the action referred to could properly De IN
dulged, it would seem to be that tWo-thiras
o. a quorum of the Senate did not consent TO
the ratification the grounds indicated
AMERICAN SOVEREIGNTY COMPLETE
1t is further contended that a distinction ex-
lists in that while complete possession OF Porto
Rico taken by the United states. TINS was
not so as 10 the Philippines because of the
armed resistance of the native habnants TO
a greater or less extent
We must decline to assume that the govern
ment wishes thus to dsparage the title of the
United States or to place itself In the posltlon
of wagng Of conquest.
The sovereigntv of Spain over the Philippines
and possession under claim OF title had existed
for long series of years, prior to the war
with the United States The fact that there
were instructions against her or that unc1F-
ized tribes may have defied her will did not
affect the validity OF her title She granted the
islands to the United States and the grantee
in accepting them took nothing less than the
whole grant If those in insurrection against
Spain continued in inSurrectfon against the
United States. the legal title and possession OF
the latter remained unaffected.
We do not understand that il is claimed that
IN carrying the pending hostilites the gov
ernment is seeking to subjugate the people of
foreign country but, on the contrary, that
it is preserving order and suppressing insur-
rection in territory of the United States 1t
follows that the possession Of the United States
is adequate possession under legal title, and
this cannot be asserted for purpose and
denied for another We dismiss the suggested
distinction as untenable. But it is sought to
Pf from he yVpip nf he
Lima Bidwelf because one of the five jus
tees concurring in the judgment in that case
corcurred in the judgment in Downes VS. Bid
well
PORTO RICAN CASE CITED.
In De Lima Us. BidweI Porto Rico was held
not to be foreign country after the cession,
and that q prior act exclusively applicable to
foreign countries became fnapplica bic.
In Downes VS.. Bidwell. the conclusion Of
majority Of the court was that an act of Con
gTess ieTying duties on goods imported
from Porto Rico into New-York, not in
formity with the provisions Of the constitution
in respect to the imposition of duties imposts
and excise, valid Four of the members
Of the court dissented from and five concurred.
though not on the same grounds in this conclu-
sion. The justice who delivered the opinion in
De Lima's case one of the majority, and
was Of the opinion that, although by the
sion Porto Rico ceased to be foreign country
and became territory of the United States
and domestic. vet that it merely "ap-
purtenant' territory and mot a part of the
United States within the revenue clauses of the
constitution
This view placed the territory, though not
foreign, outside of the restrictions applicable to
interstate commerce. and treated the power of
Congress when affirmatively exercised over a
territory situated supposed uncontrolled
by the provisions of the constitution in respect
of national taxation. The distinction was drawn
between 6 special act in respect Of the particu-
lar country and general and prior act only
applicable to countries foreign to OURS in every
sense The latter obliged to conform to the
rule of uniformity which was wholly disregard
ed in the former.
The ruling in the case of De Lima remained
unaffected. and controls that under considera-
ton And this is so. Notwithstanding four
members Of the majority in the De Lima case
were OF opinion that Porto Rico did not become
by the cessiOn subjected to the exercise of gov
ernnental power in the levy of duties unre-
stricted by constitutional limitations.
Decree reversed and cause remanded, with
directions TO quash the information.
DISSENTING OPINION.
Justices Gray White Shiras and McKenna
united in dissenting from the courts opinion in
the Philippine case, but they filed written
statement beyond mere note in which they
said that they ''dissented for the reasons ted
in their opinions in the cases OF De Lima VS..
Bidwell Dooley Us. The United States, and
Downes VS.. Bidwell in the last term of the
court"
HISTORY OF THE CASE.
The record shows that Pepke. who the
respondent in the court below. soldier in
the army of the United States in the Island Of
Luzon; that while there and after the ratfhca-
tion of the peace treaty he purchased the four
teen diamond rings which were involved in the
case He afterward brought these rings while
still in the service of the United States aboard
the United States vessel transporting his reGi-
M SM II = %