The St. Louis Republic., 1901-01-15
Question of COnstitutionality of
tariff Laws of Hawaii Before
Supreme Court.
PORTO RtCAN PIL0TAGE CASE.
Senator Lindsay COnstrues Deei-
sion in Nicely Case TO Hold That
Constitution Does Not Fol
low the Flag.

Washington. Jan. 1.-THE United States
Supreme Court to-day resumed its hearing
| I'm the case OF Charles Huus versus the New
York and Porto Rico Steamship Company,
and Senator Lindsay continued the argu-
ment begun by him on Friday.
The action involves the question OF pilot
age the owner OF the steamship claiming
exemption on the ground that Porto Rican
ports had ceased TO be foreign.
Senator Lindsay. in the course Of his ar
gUment. said:
Should IT be decided that Porto Rican
ports are not foreign ports in the ordinary
sense OF the word. It would be a xiSiNpt con-
struction 20 interpret the langS5 5of the
statute OF the State Of New York passed in
1854. so as to exempt from pilotage vessels
from a land then foreign. but since brought
under the domination. II is fundamental
rule % construction that laws are TO he
construed as OF the time OF their enactment.
And II would not be reasonable TO as
sumo that the Legislature Of the State pro-
posed to exempt from pilotaee vessels be-
longing to after-acquired and far-distant
territory Of the United States. even sup
posing human foresight could have fore
seen the subsection Of such territory"
Senator Lindsay quoted from decisions OF
the court to establish his contention tnat
the term foreign port could be used In
its broadeSt sense and that in early acts
the trade between the Atlantic and Pacific
coasts. was concidered. as between
foreign ports. Also. that the Treasury De-
partment did consider a port foreign unless
the clearance Of the vessel coming TO this
country was given by an officer in a GUS
toms collection district established by Con-
gress and exercising his functions under
the laws Of the United States. San Juan,
he argued, was never made a domestic port
OF the United States. and must be con-
sidered foreign port until Congress In
cludes II In one of the collection districts
Of the United States.
Following this line he argued that vessels
trading between New York and Porto Rican
ports were not In the coatsing trade.
CONSTRUCTION OF
RULING IN NEELY CASE.
In the course OF his argument, Senator
Lindsay referred to the decision just rem
dered by the court in the Nicely case. He
urged that that decision established two
propositions in support of the Government 5
contention. which apply TO the pilotage
case.
The first OF these was that the Govern
ment Of the United States may occupy and
exercise i control over country to which
its sovereignty extends in time of peace
without necessarily extending the Constitu-
tion OF the United States to that country or
Its people. and the second, that the grant
Of executive power to Congress includes the
power to legislate for any people over which
sovereignty is extended.
Senator Lindsay was followed by F.
kingsbUry Curtis for the steamship COM
pany. who contended that the vessel upon
which pilotase was demanded was exempt
on the ground that Porto Rican ports had
ceased to be foreign. and that. by the act
OF April u, 1900 the trade between Porto
Rico and the United States has been made
coastwisc.
The court authorized Charles A. Gardiner
to file a brief in the pending Porto Rico
and Philippines cases in behalf Of the To-
bacco Growers Association Of New Eng
land. The brief sustains the Governments
contention that II is entirely competent of
the United States TO lay tariff on COM
merce between the United States and their
insular possessions.
When the hearing had been completed in
the other cases, involving the connection
OF the United States with their insular pos
sessions, the case OF George W. Crossman
ct al, appellant, 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 rs, 1900. and Is the only
Hawaiian case in the list Duty was as
sessed under the provisions of the Dingley
law. The importers protested against col
lection Of duty on the ground that the
Hawaiian Islands were1a part Of the United
States; that the provision of the annexa-
tion resolution. which continued the GUS
toms laws OF the islands OF Hawaii in force
until Congress should legislate. was uncon-
stitutional