BoletiÌn mercantil de Puerto Rico. (San Juan, P.R.) 18??-1918, 1901-11-01

cation Of the treaty OF peace. Emile j. Pepke
was an enlisted man in North Dakota
volunteer regiment, serving in Luzon. Sub
seauent to the treaty of peace he bought
eleven diamond rings and made loans on
three Others to fell6w soldiers, who subse-
ouently released the rings to him. The four
| teen rings Pepke brought with him to the
United States on his discharge from the
army. when he returned with his regiment /
on transport. The rings were seized in
Chicago by a custom officers on the ground
that they had been brought into the United
States illegally.
On the face of it the case seems to differ
very little from the De Lima case, which
was decided by the Supreme Court at the |
last session. Ths De Lima case involved
duties levied on importations of sugar from
San Juan, Porto Rico, in 1899, subsequent
to the ratification OF the treaty Of peace, but
prior to the enactment of the Foraker law.
| The decision of the court was that at the
| time those duties were levied Porto Rico
was not foreign country within the mean.
ing of. the tariff laws, but a territory of the
| United States; that the duties were illegally
exacted, and that the plaintiffs we're entitled
to recover them. Should similar finding
be made in the Tepke case then all duties
llevied on importations from the Philippines
since the ratification of the treaty of peace
have been illegal, and will have to be re-
turned. It has been believed, however, that
} the Supreme Court had in mind q distinct.
ion between the two cases, otherwise 1t
! would have handed down decision in the
Pepke case at the same time as it handed
down those in the other insular cases.
The government has been proceeding on
4 the assumption that the decision would be
a in its favor and has continued to collect
: duties on goods from the Philippines. In
: deciding the De Lima case, however, Justice
Brown held that Porto Rico had become
territory Of United States because the
country mad been ceded to US, the cessi0n
accepted, possession delivered, and the
island occupied and administered aoitkoui
interference by Spain or any other power
and that it was thus domestic territory.
1t has been believed by the laW officers
of the government that the court had ir
!, mind distinction between cession and
y " possession in the Philippines and tha!
the fact OF an insurrection there and thai
military operations were necessary in order
2 to preserve peace and maintain American
: control may have guided its decision. Should
the court have taken that view then the
Philippines would not become domestic
n territory until after peace had been fully
8 s ablished and duties could consequently
4 he legally imposed.
It is suggested also that the court may
T. have had in mind the McEnery resolution
IS adopted by the Senate after the ratification
l. of the treaty disclaiming any purpose or
I the part OF the United States to incorporate
LII Is k1A ,tr,s
j Islands as q part of the United States
70 That resolution was changed to join
h resolution and as such passed the Senate
:. although it never was considered by the
8 House. II is said it may be contrued as I
II declaration of intention by the Senate as I
l. part Of the treaty making power and 81
J. fentitled to consideration by the court.
The other important case is what is know
as the second Dooley cass That relates Il
IS goods imported into Porto Rico from New
York from May 1, 1900, to Oct. % 1900
under the Porto Rican act At the las
session the court decided in the Downs cas-
that articles imported into New Yo-k from
D@-.o Rien after the passage of the Port
Rlcan act were liable to duty, but there wa
no decision on the other point of importa-
tlOns from New York into Porto Rico. Th,
qubntIOu lHFOlfeu u0T6 Is Wu0Guor QuLl
j imposed thus can be distinguished from |
duty imposed on exports from state of th'
II Union, which would clearly be unconstitu
!, tional. The constitution declares explicitly
. that emo tax or duty shall be laid on articles
: exported from any state" The fact that tkI
g duties under the Foraker act were collected
in Porto REQ and devoted exclusively tC
the expenses of Porto Rican government
will be taken into consideration by the court
q The Armstrong case still to be decided
g concerns goods imported into Porto Rico
r from ths United States between Aug. r.
:. 1898, and Dec. 5, 1899, during the military
y upaion, partly before and partly after
The rat fication Of the treaty.
The Crossman case relates to liquors i'm.
I ported from Honolulu into New York in
! April, 1900, after the passage of the resolu.
ton anneKing the Hawaiian islands and
before the passage of the act providing for
Q their government.