The age-herald., 1901-05-28

with territory acquired by treaty and ad- minister It's government as 1t does that of the District Of Columbia; it may organ ize a local territorial government; 1t may admit 1t as a state upon an equality with other states; it may sell its public lands to individual citizens or may donate them as homesteads to actual settlers; In short, when once acquired by treaty it belongs to the United States and is subject to the disposition of Congress.
 Two Theories.
 "Territory thus acquired can remain a foreign country under the tariff laws only upon one or two theories: Either that the word foreign applies to such countries as were foreign at the time the statute was enacted notwithstanding a subse- quent change in their condition or that they remain foreign under the tariff laws until Congress has formally embraced them within the customs union of the states. The first theory is obviously un- tenable While the statute Is presumed to speak from the time of it's enactment, 1t embraces all such persons or things as subsequently, fall within its scope. So when the constitution of the United State declares the states shall not do cer- tain things, this declaration operates not only upon the thirteen original states, but upon all which subsequently, become such: and when Congress places certain | restrictions upon the powers of a terri torial legislature such restrictions cease
 to operate the moment such territory Is admitted as a state. By parity of reason ing country ceases to be foreign the instant 1t becomes domestic. So, too, if l Congress see fit to cede one of It's newly
 acquired territories (even assuming that | 1t had the right to do sol to a foreign power there could be no doubt that from the day of such cession and the delivery of possession such territoy would become foreign country and be reinstated as such under the tariff laws.
 "The theory that a country remains | foreign with respect to the tariff laws until Congress has acted by embracing it within the customs union, pre-supposes that a country may be domestic for one purpose and foreign for another. No act is necessary to make 1t domestic terri tory if once 1t has been ceded to the United States. We are unable to &C., quiesce in the assumption that a territory | may be at the same time both foreign and domestic.
 Customs Revenue. "A single further point remains to be l considered. It is insisted that an act of | Congress, passed March A, 1900, applying | for the benefit of Porto Rico certain GUS
 toms revenue Is a recognition by Congress l of the right to collect such duties as upon lIupoTIduOnS lTOH d IOTSlBn CouHlTy dHu
 a recognition of the fact that Porto Rico continued to be foreign country until | Congress embraced 1t within customs
 union. It may be seriously questioned
 whether this is anything more than g
 recognition of the fact that there were
 moneys in the territory not subject tc
 existing appropriation law Perhaps we
 may so further and say that so far as the 1 duties were paid voluntarily and without
 protest, the legality of the payment was
 intended to be recognized; but 1t car clearly have no retroactive effect as to moneys heretofore paid under protest | for which an action to recover back had already been brought-the present case. We are, therefore, of the opinion at the | same time these duties were levied Porto | Rico was not foreign country within | the meaning of the tariff laws, but ter. ritory of the United States, that the | duties were illegally exacted and that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover them l back from the collector.
 ''The judgment of the Circuit Court foI the Southern district of New York Is | therefore reversed and the case remanded | to that court for further proceedings in | consonance with this opinion"
 | Justice Brown also delivered the opinion
 of the court in the case of Downs vs. Col
 lector Bidwell of the port of New York
 in which suit was brought by Downs to
 recover back dues to the amount oi
 $65s. .85 paid under protest upon oranges al
 New York brought thither from San Juar
 in November. 1900.
 The case involved the question whether
 merchandise brought into the port oi | New York from Porto Rico since the pass | age of the Foraker act Is exempt iron duty notwithstanding the third section o1 | that act which requires the payment oi l fifteen per cent. of the duties which are n ad
 like articles of merchandise imported | from foreign countries"
 l The Circuit Court of the United States | for the Southern district of New York sus- I tained the government in this position 1T ! imposing a duty.
 The supreme court affirmed the opinior | of the Circuit Court, saying:
 "We are of the opinion that the Island | of Porto Rico Is a territory appurtenani | and belonging to the United States, but not part of the United States within ths | revenue clause of the constitution; thai
 the Foraker act Is constitutional, so fal
 as 1t imposes duties upon imports from
 such island and that the plaintiff cannot
 recover back the duties exacted in this | case"
 Justice Brown outlined the distinction
 between this case and the Delima case
 saying:
 'In the case of Delima vs. Bidwell WI | hold that upon the ratification of the
 treaty of peace with Spain, Porto Rice
 ceased to be a foreign country and that
 duties were no longer collectible upor
 merchandise brought from that island l We are now asked to hold that 1t became
 a part of the United States within tha provision of the constitution which de-
 clares that all duties, imposts and excise.
 shall be uniform throughout the United States" If Porto Rico be part of the United States, the Foraker act imposine duties upon its products Is unconstitution.
 al not only by reason of a violation of tho
 uniformity clause, but because by section
 3, vessels bound to or from one State
 cannot be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.
 l 'The case also involves the broade, | question whethtr the revenue clauses cj l the constitution extend of Ntheir owI
 force to our new acquired territories. Tn, | constitution Itself does not answer th 1 question Its solution must be found ir
 the nature of the government created b,
 that instrument in the opinion of It's con
 temporaries in the practical construction put upon 1t by Congress and decisions O. l this court"
 Territories are Not States.
 After quoting authorities Justice Brow,
 says:
 '"The following propositions may be con
 sidered as established:
 l '1. That the District of Columbia am 1 the territories are not states within th, Judicial clause of the constitution eivin, jVfisdiction in cases between citizens .
 different States.
 "2. That territories are not state,