The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1901-05-28
ISLAND OF PORTO RICO
NOT FOREIGN TERRITORY
The Exhaustive Opinion of Justice
Brown Shows Practically Every
Precedent Against Govern
ment's Contention

The first case decided was that of Elias
). A. Delima, ct al, plaintiffs in error
against George r. Bidwell, collector Of
the port Of New York, the case coming
to the supreme court from circuit court
Of the United States for the district Of
New York. The decision was rendered
on behalf Of the majority of the court
by Mr.. Justice Brown, the opinion De
Ing concurred in by all the justices ex-
cept McKenna, Shiras and White The
decision hung upon the case coming from
the state Of New York involv ng the levy
ing Of $4,000 In duties on goois import ed
from Porto Rico into the United Safes,
the collection of the duty having been
sustained by the lower court. In effect
the decision was that territory acquired
by the United States is a part of the
United States and not foreign territory.
and that such import duties could not be
levied. The decision of the lower court
was reversed
Justice Brown announced in the begin
ming of his decision that the court I'M
doubtedly has jurisdiction in this case.
He said the case raised the single ques-
ton whether the territory acquired oy
the United States by cession from fore
ign power remained foreign country
within the meaning of the tariff laws,
and added:
SUGAR WAS NOT IMPORTED.
The question involved in this case is
not whether the sugars were improbable
under the tariff laws but Whet her com
ing as they aid from q port alleged to
be domes tic, they were imported from
foreign country-in other words, wheth-
er they were imported at all, as that
word is defined in Woodruff VS. Parham
We think the decision in the Fas. EFT case
Is conclusive to the effect that, If the
question be whether the sugars were
imported or not, such question could not
be raised before the board of genef al
appraisers. and that whether they were
imported merchandise for the reasons
given in the Fassett case that a vessel
is not an importable article, or because
the merchandise was not brought from
a foreign country is immaterial. In
either case the article s not I'M
PORTED.
"Conceding then that section 81 has
been repealed and that no remedy ex-
lists under the customs administration
act, does 1t follow that no action what
ever will lie? If there be an admitted
wrong, the courts will look far to supply
an adequate remedy. If an action lay
2931 and BOIL, regulating proceedings in
customs cases Chat is, turning upon the
classification Of merchandise to make
way for another proceeding before the
board of general appraisers in the same
class Of cases, did not destroy any right
of action that might have existed as to
other than customs cases, and the fact
that by section 20 no collector shall be
liable for or on account of any rulings
or decisions as to the classification of
such merchandise or the duties charged
thereon, or the collection of any dues.
charges or duties on or on account Of
such merchandise or any other matter
which the importer might have brought
before the board of general appraisers,
does not restrict the right which the
owner of the merchandise might have
against the collector in cases not fall
ing within the customs administrative
act. If the position of the government
be correct, the plaintiff would be rem
ediless; and if a collector should seize
and hold for duties goods brought from