The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1901-05-27
INSULAR CASES ARE DUE ARE AGAINST NEW GREET
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
EXPECTED TO RENDER AN
OPINION TODAY IN ALL
ANTE-DATE THE PARIS TREATY
RELATION OF TREATY TO PORTO
RICO AND PHILIPPINES PRI--
MARY QUESTIONS

WASHINGTON, May 26.--Owing to the
fact that the United States supreme
court will adjourn tomorrow for the term
the opinion is general that the court will
deliver it's opinion in the insular cases
which were heard last winter In view
of this probability Solicitor General
Richards has prepared al unofficial
statement showing the questions inyoiv-
ed in the various cases, which is as fol-
lows:
l. Duties on goods Imported into the
United States from the Philippines after
the ratification of the treaty.. The four
teen diamond rings case, Pepke claim
ant.
g. Duties on goods imported into Porto
Rico from the United States during the
the signing of the protocol and before
the ratification of the treaty of Paris.
Such were some of the duties collected
in the Armstrong case.
3. Duties collected on goods imported
into Porto Rico from the United States
during the military occupation but after
the cession Of Porto Rico by the ratifi-
cation of the treaty, and before the pas
ties were collected in the Armstrong
case and in the first Dooley case.
4. Duties collected on goods imported
into the United States from Porto Rico
after the ratification of the treaty and
before the taking effect Of the Porto
Rican act. Such were duties exacted in
the Goetz case and in the De Lima
case.
s. Duties collected upon goods coming
into the United States from Porto Rico
after the Porto Rican act took effect.
The validity of these exactlons is brought
in question in the Downes case.
6. Duties collected on goods coming
into Porto Rico from the United States
after the taking effect of the Porto
Rtcan act. Such were the duties exacted
in the second Dooley case.
tfnc fn1In TOD ,4.o1
into the United States from Hawaii aft
er the annexation and before the Ha-
Waiian act went into effect Such were
the duties in the Crossmah case.
Questions of Jurisdiction:
The propriety of the course of proceed
ure is in question in all these cases ex-
cept the fourteen diamond rings case,
This results from the different methods
by counsel in testing the co7stitutionality
of the customs exactions
In the Goetz and Crossman cases, the
duties were paid under protest and the
procedure laid down in the customs ad-
ministrative act was followed. This the
government believes to be the proper
method But If counsel In e cases to
be mentioned are correct, then this course
was probably wrong.
In the De Lima and the Downes cases
the duties paid were paid Under protest
and suit brought against the collector to
recover back. This the ( government
thinks was wrong
In the Dooley cases and the Armstrong
case the duties were paid under protest
and suit brought against the United
States to recover back, the Armstrong
case being brought in the court Of claims
and the Dooley cases in the United States
circuit court.
This the government thinks was wrong.
If the jurisdictional points made by the
government were sustained, there would
still remain the fourteen diamond rings,
the Goetz case and the Crossms j case,
which raise the fundamental question
under the treaty but do not inv I've the
validity of the Porto Rican act
The material questions involved;
The primary question Is whether the
cession contained in the treaty of Paris
made Porto Rico and the Philippines
an integral part of the United States
within the meaning of the provision re-
quiring all duties, imports end excises
to be uniform Throughout thu United
States. f%
The secondary question is ioYhether
revenue provision in the Porto can act
levying duties on goods coming rom the
United States into Porto Rico, te be used
for the benefit of Porto Rice.5r until the
insular government could provide revenue
of its own, violates the constH tHutional pro-
vision that mo tax or duty be, lad on
articles exported from any state.'
Like the primary question, Is the ques-
tion raised in the Hawaiian case. namely,
whether the resolution of annexation
made Hawaii an integral part of the
United States within the meaning OF the
limitation Of the taxing clause so that
instantly our customs laws applied there.
Notwithstanding the express provision of
the resolution that the existing customs
laws Of the Hawaiian Republic should
continue in force until cong ess should
pass an act extending our ct-stoms laws
IN tiha islands