New-York tribune., 1901-05-29
VIEWS OF COUNSEL HERE.
CHARLES A. GARDINER AND CHARLES
FREDERICK ADAMS TALK OF
THE DECISION.

Charles A Gardiner who filed brief considered
by the United States Supreme Court previous 10 us
decision in the insular cases, said yesterday 'ha'
the court in its decision had followed the points
he made and his line of argument The fundameh-
tai principal he advanced was that the United
States was a sovereign nation that II posse'Seu
all the national powers enumerated in the constr
tuition and all the unenumerated powers reserved
TO the people. that these aggregated all the powers
Of the most potent sovereignty and that the ma
tionaI government could exercise them all. unless
expressly prohibited by the constitution Mr. Gar
diner continued:
contended that any power to acquire ioTeis SI
the United ana unless specifically EIfha5t Pr9hhS
ited by the constitution could be exercseG % ~
proPosition Is distinctly adopted by Mr. Justice
White in elaborate argument In whlch ne ne , ooII
TO exercise It's sovereignty in acquiring territory
is unrestricted as the sovereign Power Pa OF r''S
/ next advanced the proposition that the SOW
The legislative executive and judicial departments
Of the government: that political queStiois peoie
judicial questions to the judicial department and
that political questions were not subject 10 ,G Ite
sltion OF Porto Rico and the Phnpplnes the @ uloue
and extent thereof the dehmtatloa OF tne OouI,
government Of the islands and their inhabitants
mai these and all similar questions in the cases
therefore within the jurisdiction OF the court
Charles Frederick Adams. of the counsel as
sociated with Coudert Brothers, attorneys Tor tie
plaintiff in two insular cases in which decisions
were given by the United States Supreme Court.
said Yesterday that the approved the pro-
cedure of the attorneys in the Downes and DE
Lima cases although counsel for the government
and the court below had declared the procedure 10
be wrong The procedure in bringing the suits
against the Collector of the Port. instead OF ap-
pealing from the Collectors ruling to the Board OF
Appraisers. Mr.. Adams continued:
on the merits we made two points in the De
Lima case. The first that the Dingley act,
under which the duties had been collected dld not
authorize duties on importatlons from PORTO rico,
as the statute by terms applied only to imports
from foreign countries. and Porto Rico was not
at the time foreign country, II having petn
ceded to us by Spain by the Treaty of Paris. The
second point was that if the Dingley act did apply
to Porto Rico il to that extent unconstltu-
tional the constitution providing that duties must
be uniform throughout the United States. ana
Porto Rico having been at the time part or the
The former point the court sustained, holding in
effect, that the Dingey act did not authorize the
and that the plaintiffs entitled to recover their
money. the amount being about $4,000. with in
terest
This ruling made it unnecessary In the De Lima
pass upon the constitutional point which.
however, was dealt with by the decision OF the
DOwnes case The duties complained or In that
had been collected under the Foraker act
and that statute in terms spped to Porto Rico
the only question was whether IL was constttu-
tional, infringing the requirement that duties
be uniform throughout the United States AS to
this the court holds that Porto Rico was a
part OF the United States within the meaning of
the terms as used in the provision
At the Custom House yesterday it said that
the Porto Rcan import duties to be refunded in
consequence Of the United States Supreme Courts
decision of Monday would be repaid to the i'm
porters instructions should be received
from Washington, but that it impossible to
say Just how speedily such instructions were likely
to be issued.