The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1901-02-01
HAWAIIAN NH|SKEY CASE.
BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT OF
THE NATION.
Where Duties on it Illegally Collected?
Suit Involves Constitution and Flag
Question-Appelants Argument.

WASHINGTON January 11-When
the hearing in the United States Su-
preme Court had been completed in the
other cases involving the connection of
the United States with their insular
possessions, the case of George w.
| Crossman ct al, appellants, VS.. the
United States was called.
This case is one covering the entry of
goods from Hawaii, consisting of whs-
KY brandy and jam, at the custom
house at New York, April &c, 1900, and
is the only Hawaiian case in the list.
Duty was assessed under the provisions
of the Dingley law. The importers pro-
tested against collection of duty on the
ground that the Hawaiian Islands were
part of the United States, that the
provision of the annexation resolution
which continued the customs laws of
the republic of Hawaii in force until
Congress should legislate was uncon-
stitutional.
Wickham Smith presented the case
for the appellants. He laid down the
following propositions, upon which he
said, his clients rely:
1. At the time of the importation of
these goods the Hawaiian Islands. hav-
| ing been by the action of Congress, APP
proved by the President, annexed as a
part of the territory of the United
Il
within any sense of that term. and GER
tainly not within the sense of that term
as used in the enacting clause of the
Dingley tariff act.
2. The action of Congress in proVid-
ing in the joint resolution of annexation
that the customs relations of the Ha-
waiian Islands with the United States
and with other countries should remain
unchanged until Congress should fur
Their legislate on the subject was a viO-
lation of the provision of the Constitu-
ton that "all duties. imports and ex-
cises shall be uniform throughout the
United States"
g. AS such joint resolution provided
for the collection at the ports of the
Hawaiian Islands of duties upon arti-
cles sent thither from other ports of
the United States, this was in effect a
violation of the provision of section of
the Constitution that mo tax or duty
shall be laid on articles exported from
any state"
Counsel argued that this case was not
like others before the court recently,
for the reason that there was no ques-
ton involved as to the force or effect of
a treaty, the government of the repub-
lie of Hawaii having coded it's sove-
reignty to the United States. which cess
sion the Congress ratified. There is no
question of military government. The
language of the annexation act pro-
Vtdes that the islands were annexed las
a part of the territory of the United
States"
Mr.. Smith then argued that in the
I'VE places were the words United
States were used in the Constitution.
with but one exception, the term in
cludes the states and territories as well.
The exception is that clause providing
for the election of presidential electors.
After considering the application of the
naturalization and bankruptcy laws in
territories and states alike counsel
said:
1T would be a strange view of lam
guage to hold that the words through
out the United States in article l.
section g. were narrowed or more limit
ed in their scope than the words in the
United States in the fourteenth amend
ment. There is no principle of gram
mar, logic law or common sense on
which the words Throughout the Unit
ed States in the uniformity clause,
with regard to taxation, can be restric-
ted to the states excluding the terri
tories.
"A long line of decisions by this court
that certain fundamental limitations
upon the power of Congress contained
in the Constitution are in force in Vari-
GUS territories of the United States, are
disposed of by those on the other side
OF this controversy by the statement
that the Constitution operates in these
territories because Congress has seen
fit to extend it to them by it's own act.
In other words, they advance the doc
trine that the Constitution has no force
or operation in any territory until Con-
gress puts it there, and, of course, this
logically implies that it ony extends
there to the extent to which Congress
puts it there can remain there only so
long as Congress chooses to permit. In
other words, those who hold that Con-
gresS puts the Constitution into the
territories, cannot escape from main
tanning that Congress has power at any
time to take the Constitution out of the
territories. If the Constitution oper-
ates today in Arizona, New Mexico and
Oklahoma only because Congress has
chosen to extend it to those territories,
it must be within the power of Congress
tomorrow to enact that the Constitu-
ton shall no longer be operative in any
of it's parts jim these territories. In
deed, it is a question whether Congress
would need to go through that form. A
special subsequent statute repugnant
to a prior general statute obviously re-
repeats the latter (the Cherokee tobac-
co case, II WALL, 6l6) and, therefore,
according to those who are opposed to
us in this case, Congress must have a
right tomorrow to create an order of
nobility in Oklahoma or to pass a bill
of attainder in Arizona"
Counsel then said that cases had been
cited where it was held that countries
captured in war or coded by treaty
should be held as foreign until Con-
gress had legislated to define their sta
tus. This, he said, would not help the
government in this case, as the islands
were not conquered or annexed by
treaty, but by legislative action.
Mr.. Smith then cited a treasury deci-
sion of April II, 1900, holding that Porto
Rico was not a foreign country within
the meaning of the drawback clause OF
the Dingley law, and asked why Ha-
wall should have been considered a
foreign country at that time.
Counsel followed with arguments
tending to show that the uniformity
clause of the Constitution with refer
ence to indirect taxes is one of the fun
damental limitations upon the powers
of Congress, and that in consequence
the DrpViSipn pf the act