Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1901-01-15
STATUS OF HAWAII
Did Annexation Make It Part Of the
United States?
ARGUMENT IN TEE SUPREME COURT
importers Protest Against ColIec-
ton of Duties.
TIL ERR CASE PRESE n TIE d

| L IL h L IL u A > Il L IL h > T. n L Il -
| When the hearing in the United States
Supreme Court had been completed yesterday
! in the other cases involving the connection
of the United States with their insular pos
sessions, the case of George w. Crossrnan
| ct al, appellants, VS.. the United States was
| called
| This case is one covering the entry of
goods from Hawaii, consisting of whisky,
brandy and jam. at the custom house at
New York, April 20, 1900. and is the only
| Hawaiian case in the list. Duty was
sessed under the provisions of the Dingley
law. The importers protested against col
| lection of duty the ground that the Ha-
| waiian 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
Appeal was taken to the board of general
| appraisers. to the United States circuit
| court and to the Supreme Court.
Case of the Appellants.
Mr.. Wickham Smith presented the case
| for the appellants. He laid down the fol-
| lowing propositions, upon which. he said,
his clients rely:
l. At the time of the importation of these
goods the Hawaiian Islands, having been by
the action of Congress-, approved by the
President, annexed as a part of the terri
tory of the United States. were not for
eign country within any sense of that term.
and certainly not within the sense of that
term used in the enacting clause of the
Dingley tariff act.
9 The action of Congress in providing in
the joint resolution Of annexation that the
stn la of 10 a
with the United States and with other coun
tries should remain unchanged until Con-
gress should further legislate on the sub
ject was a violation of the provision of the
Constitution that "all duties. imports and
| excuses shall be uniform throughout the
United States"
3. AS such joint resolution provided for
the collection at the ports of the Hawaiian
Islands Of duties upon articles sent thither
from other ports of the United States, this
was in effect, violation of the provision
of section of the Constitution that mo
tax or duty shall be laid articles eX-
ported from any state"
Counsel argued that this case was not like
others before the court recently, for the
reason that there was no question involved
as to the force or effect of treaty, the
government of the republic of Hawaii hav-
ing coded its sovereignty to the United
States. which cession the Congress ratified.
There Is no question of A military govern
ment. The language of the annexation act
provides that the islands were annexed las
a part of the territory of the United
States"
States and Territories Included.
Mr. Smith then argued that in the five
places where the words United States were
used in the Constitution, with but one ex-
ception, the term includes the states and
territories as we'll. The exception is that
clause providing for the election of presi-
dental electors After considering the ap
Mi of ha a
ruptcy laws in territories and states alike
counsel said:
1T would be a strange view of language
tn hold that the words throughout the
United States in article l. section s. were
narrowed or more limited in their scope
than the words fin the United States IN
the fourteenth amendment. There IS no
principle of grammar, logic. law or COM
mon sense on which the words Throughout
the United States in the uniformity clause
with regard 10 taxation, can be restricted
to the states excluding the territories.
"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 various terri
tories of the United States, are disposed OF
by those on the other side of this contro-
versy by the statement that the Constitu-
ton operates in these territories because
Congress has seen fit to extend it to them
by its own act. In other words. they adj
vance the doctrine that the Constitution
has no force operation in any territory
until Congress puts 1t there. and. of course,
this logically implies that it only extends
there to the extent to which Congress puts
it there. and can remain there only so long
as Congress chooses to permit. In other
words, those who hold that Congress puts
the Constitution into the territories, can
not escape from maintaining that Congress
has power at any time to take the Consti
tuition out of the territories. If the Con-
stitution operates today in Arizona, New
Mexico and Oklahoma only because Con-
gress has chosen to extend 1T to those ter
ritories, it must be within the power of
Congress tomorrow to enact that the Con-
stitution shall no longer be operative in
any Of it's parts in these territories In
deed, it is a question whether Congress
would need to go through that form.
special subsequent statute repugnant to
prior general statute obviously re-repeals
the latter (the Cherokee tobacco case, II
Wall. $50, and. therefore. according to
those who are opposed to us in this case,
Congress must have a right tomorrow 20
create an order of nobility in Oklahoma or
to pass bill of attainder in Arizona
Counsel then said that cases had been
cited where 1t was held that countries cap
tured in war ceded by treaty could be
held as foreign until Congress had legis-
lated to define their status. This, he said,
would not help the government In this case,
as the islands were not conquested or an
nexed by treaty but by legislative action
He said further
Mr. Smith then cited treasury decision
OF April II. 1890 holding that Porto Rico
was not a lOTelSn country within the mean
ing of the drawback clause of the Dingiey
law. and asked why Hawaii should have
been considered a foreign country at that
time.
Violation of the Constitution.
Counsel followed with arguments tending
to show that the uniformity clause of the
Constitution with reference to indirect taxes
is one of the fundamental limitations upon
the powers of Congress, and that in cnnse-
quence the provision Of the annexation act
which continued in force the customs regu-
lationS Of the republic was clear violation
of the uniformity clause. From this he
went on to argue that in case the islands
were considered foreign any tax collected
there upon goods coming from this country
would be in effect an export tax as there
would be no difference whether a tax on
goods going from a state t. the islands
were taxed at the point Of shipment or at
the destination, as the charge would lie
from the time the goods were shipped. The
decision Of the supreme court of Hawaii, to
the effect that the Constitution Of the
United States had been IN force in the
| islands since August II. 1898. was cited and
the argument closed thus: