New-York tribune., 1901-05-28
THE DE LIMA CASE.
DUTIES LEVIED PRIOR TO PASSAGE OF
TARIFF ACT ILLEGAL.

DUTIES LEVIED PRIOR TO PASSAGE OF
TARIFF ACT ILLEGAL.
Washington. May 27--The first case decided was
that of Elias S A De Lima ct al. plaintlhs IN
error against George r. Bidwen. Collector of the
Port of New-York, the case coming to the Su-
preme Court from the Circuit Court of the United
States for the State of New-York The decision
rendered behalf of the majority OF the court
by Justice Brown the opinion being concurred In
by all the justices except Messrs. McKenna. Shiras
and White The decision hung the case coming
from the State of New-York. involving the levying
of $4,000 in duties goods imported from Porto
Rico into the United States. the collection Of the
duty having been sustained by the lower court
In effect the decision that territory acquired
by the United States is not foreign territory and
that such import duties could not be levied. The
decision of the lower court was reversed
JUSTICE BROWNS OPINION.
Justice Brown announced in the beginning of his
decision that the court undoubtedly had juris-
dicton in this He said the case raised the
single question. whether the territory acquired by
the United States by cession from foreign power
remained a foreign country" within the meaning
of the tariff laws and added:
The question involved in this case is not whether
the sugars were mportable articles under the tariff
laws but whether coming as they did nrtad from q
from a foreign country-iu other words. whether
they were Imported at all as that & word Is daene
in the Fassett Is conclusive 10 the enect that;
question
or not such question could raised before the
Board of General Appraisers and that whether
given In the Fassett that vessel is not an
not brought from a foreign country is immateriaI.
In either the article is not imported
PORTO RICO's STATUS DEFINED.
After citing numerous opinions and authorities TO
show that the action of the plaintiffs in
properly brought. the court holds that:
Whether these cargoes of sugar were subject 70
duty depends solely upon the question whether
Porto Rico was foreign country az the time the
sugars were shipped, since the tariff act OF July
81. 1897. commonly known the Dingley act de
clares that there shall he levied collected and
pu upon a.! IC tI Tot
country defined by Mr.. Chief Justice Marshall
and MIR. Justice Story TO he one exclusively within
the sovereignty Of a foreign nation and without
the sovereignty of the United States.
The status Of Porto Rico this: The island
ton by the United states as a conquered country.
when. by the second article OF the treaty OF peace
between the United states and Spain. siEned De-
eem6er 10 70 lS9s , and ratified April IL Iss9 Spain
which has ever since remained I'm our possession.
and has been governed and administered by II
question were broadly presented whether country
which had been coded 10 us. the cesston accepted.
possession delivered and the island occupied and
administered without interference by Spain any
territory. 1T would seem that there could be as
little hesitation In answering this question there
would be in determining the ownership of house
decided in fee simple TO purchaser who had
and made improvements without let or hindrance
from his vendor. But IL Is earnestly insisted by
intention Of Congress TO admit Porto Rico into a
customs union with the United States and that
while the island NAV he TO certain extent dOmeS-
tic territory. II sti remains foreign country
under the tariff laws. until Congress has en-
braced II within the general revenue system
DISTINCTION IN THE FORAKER ACT
At great length the court then discussed similar
cases arising from previous acquisitions of terri
tory by the United States reviewing very fully
former decisions OF the court involving questions
such as are presented in this The possessions
in connection with which the main question in
volved in this case has arisen Louisiana Flor
ida. Texas. California and Alaska Each case was
taken up in order and analyzed minuteIy The
court then presented its conclusions in part as
follows
As showing the eonsrgction put upon this ques-
TO add that Section of the Foraker act makes a
Rico by enact!ng that the same duties SHAH bo
paid upon "an articles imported into Porto Rico
which are required by law to be collected une5
articles imported. into the United States from
foreign countries"
But this presented an original question
we should be impeled irresistbly 10 the same
BY Article II. Section >. of the constitution. the
consent the senate TO make treaties pro
ana by artc VI 81 b, present con
laws of the United States. which shall be made in
shall be made. under the authority OF the United
States, shall be the supreme law of the land" III
Will be observed that no distinction is made as TO
the question of supremacy between laws and
treaties except that both controlled he
constitution. \ law requires the assent of both
houses of Congress. and except in certain specified
cases, the signature of the President. 4 treaty is
negotiated and made by the President. with tha
concurrence of two-thirdS Of the Senators present
but each of them Is the supreme law of the land
One of the ordinary incidents of treaty is the
cesson of territory. 1t is not too much to saw II
is the rule. rather than the exception that a
treaty OF peace. following upon war provides for
q cesson of territory to the victorious party. The
territory thus acquired is acquired absolutely
If the annexation We're made, in the case of
Texas and Hawaii, by an act of Congress
,CnyrrpEn
1t follows from this that by the ratification of
the Treaty of Paris the island became territory OF
the United States-although not an organized ter
But whatever be the of this power. its
uninterrupted exercise by Congress for a century
and the repeated declarations of this court have
settled the law that the right acquire territory
involves the right to govern and dispose of il.
Indeed. II is scarcely too much say that there
rltory or Louisiana was purchased that
mas not enacted legislation based
suihed authority 10 govern and control the Ter
Iitores. IL Is an authority which arises not
necessarily from the territorial clause of the CON
sutution. but from the necessities of the case and
SUBJECT Under this power Congress may deal
WITH territory acquired By treaty: may administer
IS soveriment as II does that District OF
SoiuIpia IL may organize a local territorial gov
o., ~ may admit II as State upon equal
~ Win otner states IL may sell public lands
20 lnalVidual citizens may donate them as home
steaoS 20 actual settlers. In short when once ac
qureu ny treaty. II belongs TO the United states
anu Is suoJect 10 the disposition of Congress
The theory a country raroai,c srrat~s-
r. Ia