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

EreSS = 1o41o - Appropriate the NO
ney 20 pay to- h This has been nuch /
discussed hT writer's upon ecnstftn
tio1al lsw. b1k Il e n1t necessary % !
consider L IN tbs eaze. as CcnEress
rRes prcErt appropriation cf tie /
EonsT ssfralzte6 u tie treaty. THIS /
theory also pFesupposes that territory 1
nay Be held Indefinitely BY the United /
States. thar Il may be treated In every
particular. excepe for tariH purposes.
Is domestic territoFy; that lESs nay
be snAeted ard enforced By o3cers I
OF the United States sent there Tor
that purpose that Instructions may
BE suppressed. wars carried On. rev.
enues collected. taxes Imposed: 81
short. that everything may BE done
which = government can DO within
its own boundaries. and Jet that the
territory may still remain q foreign
country That this state OF things
may continue for years. for \ century
even. but that until Congress enacts
otherwise. Il stin remains 4 foreign
country. To hold that this can Be
done as matter OF law we deem to
be pure judicial legislation. We nna
no warrant for Il in the Constitution
or In the powers conferred upoa this
court. Il is true the nonaction OF
Congress may occasion q temporary
Inconvenience bat il does not follow
that courts OF justice ara authorised
20 remedy Il hy inverting the ordinary
meaning OF words
II an act Of Congress be necessary
70 convert q foreign country into To-
nestle territory. the question at once
suggests Itself what Is the character
OF the legssIatioa demanded for this
purpose WIN an act appropriating
the duties collected upon imports 10
and from such country for the benefit
OF its government be suficientT An
parently not. VIII acts making appro-
prtahons for its postal service. Tor
the establishment OF lighthouses. FOR
the maintenance OF Quarantine sta.
tons. for erecting public buildings
have that effects Will an act essah.
fishing q complete local government
but with the reservation OF a right 20
collect duties upon commerce. be ada-
quafe for that purpose? None OF
these, nor all together. viii be SUM-
cient, IL the contention OF the Govern
ment be sound, since acts embracing
all these provisions have been passed
In connection with Porto Rico. and
II is Unlisted that II is still a foreign
country within the meaning OF the
tariff laws. We are unable to acquiesce
IN this assumption that a territory
may be AZ the same time both foreign
and domestic.
A single further point remains TO
be considered: II is insisted that an
act OF Congress, passed March "a. 1900.
(Sl Stat 1917 applying for the bene-
at OF Porto Rico the amount Of the
customs revenue received on importa-
tons by the United States from Porto
Rico since the evacuation OF Porto
Rico by the Spanish forces. October
Is, 1888. to January l, 1900, together
with any further customs revenues
} collected on importations from Porto
} Rico since January l, 1900, or that
shall hereafter be collected under ex,
isting Law. is q recognition by Con-
gress Of the right to collect such du-
ties as upon importations from q for.
eign country. and a recognition Of the
fact that Porto Rico continued to be
foreign country until Congress en-
braced Il within the Customs Uufou
Il may be seriously questioned wheth-
ler this is anything more than a recog-
milton OF the fact that there were
moneys in the Treasury not subject
to existing appropriation laws. Per-
haps we may go farther and say that.
so far as these duties were paid vol
unfairly and without protest, the le-
gality OF the payment was intended
to be recognized: but It can clearly
have no retroactive effect as 10 mo-
neys heretofore paid under protest
for which an action 70 recover back
rad already been brought AS the
action In this case was brought March
Is. 1900. eleven days before the act
was passed. the right to recover the
money sued for could not be taken
laway by a subsequent act OF Congress.
Plaintiffs sue In assumpsit for money
which the collector has in his hands.
Justly and equitably belonging TO
them. To say that Congress could by
a subsequent act deprive them OF the
light to prosecute this action would
be beyond its power. Ia any event. il
should not be interpreted SO as TO
make il retroactive. (Kennett's Pc
titinn. "a n. H 139: Alters Appeal.
81 Penn. St. 341: Norman v. Hoist, 5
W. & s. Ill; Donavan v. Pitcher, So
Ala AL: Palairet's Appeal. 81 Penn.
st. 479; State v. Warren. % Md. 1881
We are therefore OF opinion that at
the time these duties were levied Pnr-
to Rico was not a foreign country
within the meaning OF the tariff laws
but a territory of the United States.
that the duties were illegally exacted
md that the plaintiffs are entitled TO
recover them back
Tn, Judgment OF the Circuit Court
for the 5 1rtherp district % New York
Is therefore reversed and the case re
manded TO that court for further pro.
ceedings in consonanee with this opin.
ion.
: John Il Goetze, Appellant, $40. vs.
The United States: George W Cross
: man ct al. Appellants. SIS. IS. The
United States Appeals from the Cir.
) cult Court Of the United States for the
! Southern District Of New York
, These we're petitions for q rsvieu
] LOT two decisions Of the board Of gen
: eral appraisers. holding subject e
duty certain merchandise. imported
IN one case from Porto Rico. and II
4 Naha fp4.r.s ETfsrsrste~f.a - a. T.