The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1901-05-28

position"
After citing numerous positions and
authorities to show that the action Of
the plaintiffs in error was properly
brought, the court holds that whether
these cargoes of sugar were subject to
duty depends solely upon the question
whether Porto Rico was a foreign coun-
try at the time the sugars were shipped
since the tariff act of July "a, 1897, COM
monty known as the Dingley act, de-
clares that there shall be levied col
lected and paid upon all articles i'm
ported from foreign countries certa n
duties therein specified.
A foreign country was defined by Mr..
: Chief Justice Marshall and Mr.. Justice
Storey TO be exclusively within the SOW
erelSnty OF foreign nation and without
the sovereignty Of the United States.
NOT A FOREIGN COUNTRY.
The status of Porto Rico was this:
The island had been for some months un-
der military occupation by the United
States as a conquered country. when by
the second article of the treaty of peace
between the United States and Spain
signed Dec. TO- 1888 and ratified April II,
l69g, Spain coded to the United States
the island of Porto Rico, which has ever
since remained in our possession and has
been governed and administered by us
II the case depended solely upon those
Iacts and the question We're broadly pre-
sented whether a country which had
been ceded to us, the cession accepted
Possession delivered and the island occu-
pleI ana administered without interfer-
cnce by Spain or any other power was a
foreign country or domestic territory, it
would seem that there could be as little
hesitation In answering this question as
eneIe would be in determining the own
efShlp Of house decided in fee simple to
purchaser who had accepted the deed
gone INTO possession paid taxes and
made Improvement without let or him
ORANGE from his Vender. But 1t IS ear
nestly insisted by the government that II
never could have been the intention of
congress TO admit Porto Rico into GUS
TOMS union with the United States and
tI&t While the island may be to a Ger
lp!n extent domestic territory, it still re-
mains a foreign country under the tariff
laws thth congress has embraced 1t with
III the general revenue system"
AT great length the court then dis
! CuSSeS similar cases arising from previ-
Gus ACQUISITIONS Of territory by the lin ted
states reviewing very fully former de-
e,nipnS OF the court involving questions
Such as are presented in this case The
possessions in connection with which the
mann question involved in this case has
iiSeh are Louisiana, Florida, Texas. Cat
norma and Alaska. Each case was talk
en- up in order and analyzed minuteIv
Inc court then presented its conclusion
In the following language:
AS showing the construction put upon.
thiS question by the legislative deDar4-
pent, We need only to add that section
Oh the FORAKER act makes distinction
DCt~een foreign countries and Porto
RICO by cnacting that the same duties
SNAIL ne paid upon all articles imnorted
lpto Porto Rico from ports other tha,,
those OF the United States which are re-
qulred by law to be collected upon q IL
G T.e,, imported into the United States from
tOhEIGN COUNTRIES
PRECEDENTS CITED
From this resume of the decisions NJ
inns court, the instructions of the execu-
1--WE departments and the above act Of
congress, It is evident that, from 1909
the date of Mr.. Gallatins letter to mo
present time, there is not a shred of AZ
lnor1ty. except the dictum in Fleming VS.
rage for holding that district CEDED
10 AND IN THE POSSESSION OF the
united states remains for any purpose
a foreign country. Both these condi.
tions must exist to produce a change of
nationality Tor revenue purposes Pos
session is not alone sufficient as was
heId In Fleming VS.. Page; nor is a treaty.
ceclng such territory sufficient without
surrender of possession The nractice ~
inc executive departments thus contIn-
ued Tor more than half century. Is en-
ttIed TO great weight and should not be
diSregarded nor overturned excent FOR
cogent reasons and unless IL be clenr
that such construction be erroneous
put were TINS presented as an orig
ma question, we should be impeled ir-
ftSiStlbly to the same conclusion
BY article H.. section 2. of the cone+i-
luton the president Is given power by
and with the advice and consent Of the
4 80, ~ make treaties, provided that
] tWo-thirdS of the senator's present con-
! cur and by article vi. this constitution
ana the laws of the United States which
Shall be made in pursuance thereof. and
az IrIati t made or which shall be made
! shalI be the supreme law of the land
1t Will be observed that no distinction
- maze as to the question Of supremacy
between laws and treaties, except that
|, both are controlled by the constitution
A law requires the assent of both
| houses of congress, and, except in certain
/ speelhcd cases, the signature Of the pres
ident: A treaty is negotiated and made
! by the president, with the concurrence
/ of two-thirds Of the senators present
but each Of them is the supreme law Of
! the land.
zone of the ordinary Incidents y a
! treaty is the cess.on of territory II is
not too much to say it Is the rule rather
| than the exception that a treaty of
| peace, following upon war, provides
for a cession Of territory to the victori-
Gus party. The territory thus acquired
! is acquired as absolutely as If the annex
! alton were made, as in the case Of
| Texas and Hawaii. by an act Of con-
gress. 1t follows from this that by rati-
ilcation OF the treaty OF Paris the island
became territory Of the United States,
| although not an organized territory in
the technical sense OF the word.
1T Is true Mr.. Chief Justice fancy
held in Scott VS.. Sanford that the ter
! ritorial clause Of the constitution was
confined and intended to be confined to
the territory which at that time belonged
to or was claimed by the United States
and was within their boundaries. as set
tied by the treaty with Great Britain
and was not intended to apply to terri
tory subsequently acquired. He seemed
TO differ in this construction from CHI eff
Justice Marshall who. in speaking OF
7 Florida before 1t became a state, remarked
that IT continued to be territory Of the
United States, governed by the territorial
clause of the constitution.
PREVIOUS ACTION OF CONGRESS.
But whatever be the source Of this
power, its uninterrupted exercise by con-
gTeSS for a century and the repeated dec
laratons Of this court have settled the
law that the right to acquire territory
involves the right to govern and dispose
of it. Indeed, It is scarcely too much to
say that there has not been a session Of
was purchased that that body has not
| enacted legislation based upon the as
sumed authority to govern and control
! the territories. 1t is an authority which
arises, not necessarily from the terri
torial clause Of the constitution, but from
! the necessities of the case and from the
| inability Of the states to act upon the
! case. Under this power congress may
| deal with territory acquired by treaty;
may administer its government as 1t does
| that Of the District Of Columbia; II may
organize a local territorial government;
1t may admit it as state upon an equal
ity with other states; 1t may sell its pub
lie lands to individual citizens, or may
donate them as homesteads to actual set
tiers. In short when once acquired by
treaty, 1t belongs to the United States
ard is subject to the disposition of con-
greSs
Territory thus acquired can remain a
foreign country under the tariff laws only
/ upon one Of two theories: Either that
the word foreign applies to such coun-
tries as were foreign at the time the
statute was enacted Notwithstanding any