The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1901-12-03
DIAMOND RING CASE
THE HIGHEST COURT SAYS
CONCERNING 1T.

court touay III the last OF -tne hlSulaf
tes! cases. One Of them was that known
as the fourteen diamond rings case,
involving the relationship of the United
States to the Philippine islands from a
tariff point of view. The other is known
as the "Dooley Case No. 81 involving
the constitCtionality of the collection of
duty on goods shipped from the United
States to Porto Rico.
In the former case the court, through
Justice Fuller, held that the diamond
rings brought in from the Philippines,
and over which the case arose, should
have been exempt from duty, since the
Paris treaty of peace made the Philip
pines American territory. The decision
in the Philippine case. followed closely
that of the first Porto Rican case OF last
term.
In the Dooley case, decided today, it
was held. that the duty collected Oh
goods carried from New York to Porto
Rico was permissible, but that 1t was
in reality a tax for the benefit OF the
Porto Ricans themselves rather than an
export duty, as was claimed by the
merchants who antagoniZed the govern
ment in the case.
In both cases there were dissenting
opinions concurred in by four of the
nine justices of the court.
in the Philippine case will lead to early
efforts to secure legislation for the reg
ulation of our commercial relations with
those islands. As the Porto Rican opinion
sustains the constitutonality of the For
aker act, no such necessity will arise with
respect to the Porto Rico.
How Ring Case Originated.
I In the ring case the record shows that
Pepke, who was the respondent in the
court below, was a soldier in the United
States in the army of Luzon, and while
there and after ratification of the peace
treaty, he purchased the fourteen dia-
nlond rings which are involved in the
case. He afterwards brought these rings
while still in the service of the United
States, aboard the vessel" transporting
his regiment to San Francisco, where he
was mustered out. Later he came with
the rings to Chicago, where the rings
were seized by the customs officers un-
der the claim that the philippine islands
were foreign territory and merchandise
brought from those islands to the United
States was subject to customs duties,
which were not paid by Pepke.
Pepke set up the claim that the inposi-
ton of duties under the circumstances
was contrary to the constitution of the
United States and in violation of his
rights as a citizen, and on this conten-
ton the case came to the supreme court
from the district court of the United
States for the northern division of ILL
nois.
After stating the case at some length
Chief Justice Fuller quoted somewhat
extensively from the opinion of this court
in the case of De Lima versus Bidwell.
His principal quotation from that case
was the paragraph setting forth the
theory that a country remains foreign
with respect to tariff laws, until con-
gress has acted by embracing it within
the customs. The opinion then continues
as follows:
Philippines Status Defined.
''No reason is apparent for any differ
ent ruling with relation to the Philip
pines. BY the treaty of Paris, Spain
pelago known as the Philippine islands,
and the United States agreed to pay to
Spain the sum Of $2O,0O0,000 within three
months. The treaty was ratified, con-
gress appropriated the money, the ratifi-
cation was proclaimed. The treaty-mak-
ing power, the executive power, the legis-
lative power, concurred in the completion
of the transaction.
''The Philippines thereby ceased, in the
language of the treaty, to be Spanish.
Ceasing to be Spanish they cease to be
foreign country. They came under the
complete and absolute sovereignty and
dominion of the United States, and so
become territory of the United States,
whereby civil government could be estab-
liShed.
GAS to the intention of the senate In
ratifying the treaty we are not informed.
and it is not material; and if any i'm
p1ication from the action referred to
could properly be INDUCED, it would seem
to be that two-thirds Of a quorum of the
senate did not consent to the ratification
on the grounds indicated.
"It is further contended that q distinc-
ton exists in that, while complete occu-
patton of Porto Rico was taken by the
United States, this was not so as to the
Philippines, because of the armed resist
ance of the native Inhabitants, to great
er or less extent. We must decline to
assume that the government wished thus
to disparage the title of the United States
or to place itself in the position of waging
a war of conquest.
Islands Not Foreign TERRITORY.
1--WE do not understand that 1t is claim
ed that in carrying on the pending hos
tilities, the government Is seeking to sub
jugate the people of foreign country,
but on the contrary, that it is preserving
order and suppressing insurrection in the
territory Of the United States. 1t follows
that the possession of the United States
is adequate possession under legal title,
and this cannot be asserted for one pur-
pose and denied for another. We dismiss
the suggested distinction as untenable.
decree reversed and case remanded,
with directions to quash the informa-
tion.''
Gist of Dissenting Opinion.
''The power to regulate interstate COM
merce was granted in order that trade
between the states might be left free
from discriminating legislation and not
to impart the power to create antago.
nistic commercial relations between
them. The prohibition of preference Of
ports was coupled with the prohibit;3l
of taxation on articles imported The
citizens of each state were declared EN-
titled to all privileges and immunities
Of citizens In the several states and that