The San Francisco call., 1901-12-03
Sovereignty of Spain Ceases.


II Is further contended that distinction ex-
lists in that while complete possession Of Porto
Rico was taken by the United states, THIS was
not so as to the philippines. because OF the
a greater or less extent
We must decline to assume that the Govern
ment wishes thus to disparage the title OF the
United States or to place itself In the position
of waging a war OF conquest
The sovereignty OF Spain over the philippines
and possession under claim Of title had existed
for a long series Of years prior 70 the war WIN win
the United States. The fact that there s.,,s were
instructions against her or that uncivilized
tribes may have defed her will did not AFFECT
the validity Of her title. She granted the ISL
ands to the United States and the grantee, in
accepting them took nothing less than the
whole grant II those in insurrection against
United States the legal title and possession OF
the latter remained unaffected.
We do not understand that 1t Is claimed that
In carrying on the pending hostilities the Gov
ernrnent is seking to subjugate the people OF
foreign country but the contrary that Il 10
in territory Of the United States It follows that
the Jurisdiction Of the United States Is ade-
duate and this cannot be admitted for one pur
pose and denied for another. 1t is sought to
detract from the weight Of the ruling in De
Lima versus Bidwell because one Of the fve
concurred IN the Judgment in Downs versus
In De Lima versus Bidwell Porto Rico was
held not to be foreign country, after cession.
and that q prior act exclusively applicable to
foreign countries became inapplicable.
In Downs versus Bidwell the conclusion OF
a majority Of the court was that an act OF
Congress 1evying duties on goods Imported from
Porto Rico into New York not in conformity
with the provisions OF the constitution In re-
spect to the imposition Of duties imposts and
excises was valid -Four Of the members Of the
court dissented from and fve concurred in the
decision, though not on the same grounds. The
Justice who delivered the opinion in De Lima 3
case was one OF the majority and was OF opfn-
ion that although by the concession Porto Rico
ceased to be a foreigun country and became
territory Of the United States and domestic.
yet that It was merely "appurtenant'' terri
tory and not a part Of the United States with
in the revenue clauses Of the constitution
Court Orders the Decree Reversed
This view placed the territory, though not
foreign, outside Of the restrictions applicable to
interstate commerce and treated the power OF
Congress when affirmattvely exercised over a
territory, situated as supposed and uncontrolled
spect of national taxation The distinction was
drawn between special act in respect OF the
only applicable to countries foreign to ours in
every sense. The latter was obliged to con-
form to the rule OF uniformity, which was who'll
ly disregarded In the former.
The ruling in the OF De Lima remained
unaffected and controls that under considera-
tfon. And this is so Notwithstanding four mem
Of the opinion that Porto Rico did not become
by the cession subjected to the exercise OF gov
ernmental power in the levy Of duty unre-
strfcted by constitutional limitations
Decree reversed and case remanded with di-
rections to quash the information
Justices Gray, White, Shiras and Nc
Kenna united in dissenting from the
courts opinion in the Philippine case, but
they filed no written statement beyond a
mere note in which they said that they
''diSSented for the reasons stated in their
| opinions in the case of De Lima VS.. Bid
well, Dooley vs. the United States and
| Downs VS.. BidWeu in the last term Of the
court"