The Atlanta constitution., 1901-12-09
SUPREME COURT DE-
C|DES LAST |NSU-
LAR CASES.

w United States supreme court to-
day in the last two of the insular test
cases. One of them was that known as
''the fourteen diamond rings" case, in
volving the relationship of the United
States to the Philippine islands from
tariff point of view. and the other what
is known as the Dooley case No. 2, in
volving the constitutionality of the col
lection of duty on goods shipped from
New York to Porto Rico.
In the former case the court, through
Chief Justice Fuller. held that the dia-
mond rings brought in by n soldier from
the Philippines and over which the case
arose, should have been exempt from
duty under the Paris treaty of peace, as
that treaty made the Philippines Amerl-
can territory. The decision in the Phil
ippine case followed closely that of the
first Porto Rican case of last term.
In the Dooley case, decided today,lt was
held that the duty collected on goods
carried from New York to Porto Rico
was permissible, but that it was in real
ity n tax for the benefit of the Porto Ri
cans themselves rather than an export
duty, as was claimed by the merchants
who antagonized the government in the
case.
In both cases there were dissenting
opinions concurred in by four of. the nine
justices of the court.
1t is generally believed the finding in the
Philippine case will lead to early efforts
to secure legislation for the regulation
of our commercial relations with those
islands. AS the Porto Rican opinion sus-
tains the constitutionality of the Forake:
act, no such necessity will arise with ref
erence to Porto Rico.
Chief Justice Fuller's Opinion.
rim On
at some length. Chief Justice Fuller
quoted somewhat extensively from the
opinion of this court in the case of De
Lima V. Bidwen His principal quotation
from that case was the paragraph setting
forth the theory that a country remains
foreign with respect TO the tariff laws uh-
Ill congress has acted by embracing II
within the customs. The opinion lheh
continued as follows:
mo reason Is perceived for any differ
ent ruling as To- the Philippines. BY the
third article of the treaty Spain ceded to
the United States the archipelago known
as the Philippine islands. and the United
States agreed 10 pay Spain the sum OK
900 within three months. Jhe treaty
was ratified, congress appropriated the
money, the ratification was procltimed.
The treaty-making power, the executive
power. the legislative power concurred In
the completion OK the transaction.
THE Philippines thereby ceased in the
Ccasing to be Spanish they cease to be
foreign country. They came under the
complete and absolute sovereignty ana
dominion of the United States and so be-
came territory of the United States over
which civil government could be eStab-
lshed. The result was the same. al
though there was no stipuation that the
native inhabitants should be Incorporated
into the body polite and none securing
to them the right TO choose their alton
ality. Their allegiance became Que %
the United States and they became enu-
But 1t is said thIt the case of the
Philippine islands is to be distinguished
from that Of Porto Rico because On Feb
ruary H. 1899 after the ratification or
that treaty. the senate resolved that DY
the ratification of the treaty of peace
with Spain il Is not intended TO lHcorpor-
ate the Inhabitants of the Philippine IS.
lands into the citizenship of the United
States. etc. nor to permanently annex
those islands. .
I'VE need not consider the force and et-
feet Of the resolution Of this sort II
adopted by congress not like that Of
April 20. 1898. In respect OF Cuba, pre-
liminary to the declaration OF war, but
after title has passed by ratified cessloh'
1t Is enough that this was a joint resoiu-
ton; that 1t was adopted by the senate
by a vote of % to o. not two-thirds oi
quorum: and that II is absolutely WIN
out legal significance on the question be
fore us The meaning of the treaty can
not be controlled by a SUBSEQUENT eXpla-
nation of some of those VINO may nave
voted tO ratify Il. what view the houSe
might have taken as to the intention or
the senate in ratifying the treaty we dIc
not notified nor is il material; ana II
any fmplica ION from the action referred
10 could properly be INDUCED 1t would
seem to be that twO-thlrdS OF q quorum
of the senate did not consent to the rati-
fication on the grounds Indicated
Title of United States.
"It Is further contended that dis
tinctfon exists in that complete possession
of Porto Rico was taken by the thlled
States 1t was not SO as 10 the philippines
because of armed resistance by the ma
. tive inhabitants to a greater or lesser eN-
tent.
I'VE must decline to assume that the
government wishes thus to disparage
the title of the United States or to place
itself In the position Of waging a war OF
conquest.
'"rhe sovereignty Of Spain over the
Philippines and possession under claim OF
title had existed for a long term OF years year.
prior TO the war with the United states.
The fact that there We're lnsurrectiohs
against her or that unclXlllzed tribes
may have detied her Will dld not ahect
the validity of her title. She granted
the islands go the United States and
the guarantee In accepting them TOOK
nothing less than the whole grant. II
those in insurrectiOn against Spain con-
tinued in insurrection against the United
States. the legal title and possession Of
the latter remained unaffected.
I'VE do not understand that II IS
/ claimed that In carrying on the pend
ing host ties the government is seeking
/ to subjugate the people OF a foreign
! country, but on the contrary, mat II IS
preserving order and suppressing insur-
| rection in territory of the United states
1t follows that the possession ot IN.
United States is adequate under le5S.
/ title and this cannot be asserted foi one
/ purpose and denied for another.
/ I'VE dismiss the suggested distinction
/ as untenable. II is sought to detract
/ from the weight of the ruling In Deli
ma V Bidwell because one OF the hve
I Justices concurring in the Judgment IN
/ that case conCurTed in the judgment IL
l Downes V. Bidwel:
"In Del lima V. BidwCn Porto Rico was
held not to be foreign country after the
! cession. and that a prior act exclusively
/ applicable to foreign countries became
/ inapplcable
"in Downes V. Bidwell. the conclusion
! of a ma jority of the court was that an
/ act of congress levying duties on goods
| imported from Porto Rico into New
/ York, not in conformity with the provi-
sion OF the constitution In respect to the
| imposition of duties. impoSts andeXcises,
/ was valid Four of the members of tho
/ court dessented from and five concurred
Straight from the Shoulder