Jamestown weekly alert. [volume] (Jamestown, Stutsman County, D.T. [N.D.]) 1882-1925, 1901-05-30

feet of this decision is to affirm the
constitutionality of the Foraker act
and to give congress power to deal
with newly acquired territory in
such manner as the legislative branch
may consider suitable for the new
territory. The decision also has the
effect Of declaring that the new in.
sular possessions do not by virtue OF
the treaty of cession acquire all the
privileges and rights of the constitu.
tion.
The first opinion of the court was
in the Delima case involving the i'm
portation of goods into the United
States from Porto Rico after ratifica-
tion of the treaty of Paris and before
the passage of the Porto Rican act.
Delima & Co., doing business in
New York, imported from San Juan.
Porto Rico, during the months of June
aH' July. 1899, certain sugars, the
prb> act Of Porto Rico. Upon this SUI
gar the collector at New York demand
ed and collected about $4,000 as Gus
toms duties.
Delima & Co. sued Bidwel1, the col
lector, as an individual, in the supreme
court of the state of New York. to re-
cover the duties thus paid, amounting
in all to s13,145. alleging that they
were unlawfully demanded, in viola
tion of the constitution. and collected
by duress. On the petition of the col
lector the suit was removed to the cir
cult court of the United States for the
Southern district of New York. which
sustained demurrer to the complaint
both on the ground that no cause for
action was stated and that the court
had no jurisdiction From the judg
ment dismssing the complaint Deli
ma & Co. appealed to the federal su-
preme court.
Porto Rico Not Foreign Country.
The majority opinion, which was
read by Justice Brown, held that
| whether the sugars imported from or
into Porto Rico were dutiable depends
upon whether Porto Rico is foreign
country. 1t held that the right to ac-
quire territory involves the right to
govern and control it by congress, out
he said that a country could not be
both foreign and domestic. He con-
cluded that at the time the duties were
collected Porto Rico was not a foreign
country, but territory of the United
States. Justice Brown concluded as
follows:
IF an act of congress be necessary
to convert foreign country into do
mestic territory, the question at once
suggests itself. what is the character
of the legislation demanded for this
purpose? Will an act appropriating
money for it's purchase be sufficient?
Apparently not Will an act appro.
| priating the duties collected upon i'm
ports into and from such country for
the benefit of its government be suf-
dcient? Apparently not.
"Will acts making appropriations
for it's postal service, for the establish
| ment of lighthouses, for the maintain
ence of quarantine stations, for erect
ing public buildings. have that effect?
Will an act establishing a complete
local government, but with the reser-
vation of a right to collect duties upon
commerce, be adequate for that pur-
pose? None of these nor all together
will be sufficient, if the contention OF
the government be sound, since acts
embracing all these provisions. have
been passed in connection with Porto
Rico, and it is insisted that it is still
a foreign country within the meaning
of the tariff laws. We are unable to
acquiesce in this assumption that a
territory may be at the same time
both foreign and domestic.
1--WE are, therefore. of the opinion
that at the time these duties were
levied, Porto Rico was not a foreign
country within the meaning of the tar.
iff laws, but territory of the United
States; that the duties were illegally
exacted and that the plaintiffs are en-
titled to recover them back.
"The Judgment of the circuit court
for the Southern district of New York
is therefore reversed and the case re.
manded to that court for further pro-
ceedings in consonance with this opin-
ion"
Justice McKenna delivered the dis
senting opinion of the supreme court
IN the insular cases. He was joined
in that opinion by Justices Shires and
White.
Decision in Other Cases.
In the cases of Goetz VS.. the United
States and Crossman VS.. the United
States, brought here from the circuit
court for the Southern district of New
| York to test, in the Goetz case, the va
| lidity of the levy Of duty on an lmpor-
tation of tobacco from Porto Rico
into the United States after the rati'
Aeation Of the treaty and before the
passage Of the Porto Rican act, and
| in the Crossman case duty on liquors
| imported into Hawaii after annexation
but before the taking effect of the act
providing a government for Hawaii,
the court reversed the judgments be-
low for the reasons cited in the Deli
ma case holding the levy of duties was
unconstitutional.
Justice Brown also announced the
opinion Of the court in the case OF
Dooley vs.. the United States involving
| tho validity ~ q duty levied on goods