Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1901-12-02

mfnlOn OF the HlIeu SldleS, anu 50 De
came territory of the United States. over
which civil government could be eStab-
lished
The result was the same, although there
was no stipulation that the native inhab-
itants should be Incorporated into the body
polite. and none securing to them the
right to choose their nationality. Their al
legiance became due to the United States
and they became entitled to It's protection.
But it is said that the case of the Phil
ippines is to be distinguished from that of
Porto Rico, because on February H. 1890
after the ratification of the treaty. the
Senate resolved that by the ratification of
the treaty Of peace with Spain 1t is not
intended TO incorporate the Inhabitants of
the Philippine Islands into citizenship of
the United States, nor to permanently an
mex those islands.
I'VE need not consider the force and
effect of resolution of this sort, il adopt
ed by Congress. not like that of April 20,
1sIs. in respect of Cuba. preliminary to the
declaration of war. but after title had
passed by ratified cession- 1t is enough
that this was a joint resolution; that it was
adopted by the Senate by vote of % to Do
not tWo-thirds of a quorum, and that 1t is
absolutely without legal significance on the
question before u.s.
The meaning OF the treaty cannot be con-
tr0Iled by subsequent explanations of some
OF those who may have voted to ratify 1t.
What view the House might have taken
to the intention of the Senate in ratify-
ing the treaty We are not informed nor Is it
action referred to could properly be in
duged it would seem to be that two-thirds
of quorum of the Senate did not con-
sent to the ratification on the grounds in
dicated. -r -.r.~
1t is further commended that distinc-
ton exists in that while complete possession
of Porto Rico was taken by the United
States. this was not SO as to the Philip
pines, because of the armed resistance OF
the native inhabitants to a greater or less
extent.
Title of the United States.
We must decline to assume that the
government wishes thus to disparage the
title of the United States or to place itself
in the position of waging a war of con-
quest.
The sovereignty of Spain over the Phil
ippines and possession uHder- claim of title
had existed for a long series of years prior
to the war with the United States. The
fact that there were instructions against
her that uncivilized tribes may have de-
fed her will did not affect the validity of
her title She granted the islands to the
United States. and the grantee in accepting
them took nothing less than the whole
grant.
If those In Instruction against Spain
continued in instruction against the United
States the legal title and possession of the
Halter remained unaffected
we do not understand that 1t is claimed
that in carrying on ~theI pending hostilities
the government Is seeking to subjugate
the people Of a1foreign country but. on the
contrary. that it Is preserving order and
suppressing insurrectioff in 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 purpose and denied for another. We
dismiss the suggested distinction unten-
able But II is sought to detract from the
weight of the ruling in De Lima VS.. Bid
We'll because erOfi the five justices con-
curing the fnthe Judgment in that case
cCncurred in the judgment in Downes VS.
BidweII-
I'm De Lima VS. BldweI1, Porto Rico was
held not TO be a foreign country after the
ctSsion, and that prior act exclusively
aipIlcdDle 10 foreign countries became in
applicable.
In Downes VS. Bidwell, the conclusion
OF majority of the court was that an act
OF Congress lleTying duties on goods i'm
ported from Porto Rico into New York
not in conformity with the provisions of
the Constitution in respect to the IMPOSE
ton Of duties, imposts and excuses, was
Naiid -Four of the members of the court
dissented from and five concurred though
not on the same grounds, in this conclu-
sion.
The justice who delivered the opinion in
De Limas case was one of the majority and
was of opinion that although by the ees-
sion Porto Rico ceased to be a foreign coUn-
try, and became a territory of the United
appurtenant territory and not part of
the United States within the revenue
clauses of the Constitution
This view placed the territory though
not foreign, outside of the restrictions ap-
piicable to interstate commerce. and treat
ed the power of Congress when affirmative
y exercised over a territory, situated as
supposed. as uncontrolled by the provis-
ions of the Constitution in respect of ma
tional taxation. The distinction was drawn
between a special act in respect of the par
ucular country, and a general and prior act
Only applicable to countries foreign 10 ours
In every sense.
The latter was obliged to conform to
the rule of uniformity which was wholly
disregarde6 in the former
The ruling in the case of De Lima re-
manned unaffected. and controls that under
consideration And this is so notwithstand-
Ing four members of the majority in the
u Lima case were of opinion that Porto
RICO dld not become by the eession sub
Jected TO the exercise of governmental DOW
er In the levy of duties unrestricted by con-
stltuttOnal limitations
Decree reversed and cause remandad
with directions to quash the information"
The Doofey Decision.
In the case of Henry w Dooley ct al.
against the United States Mr.. Justice
Brown delivered the opinion of the court.
Ihis was an action begun m the circuit
court as court of claims by the firm of
DOoley, Smith & Co. to recover duties ex-
acted Of them and paid under protest TO
the collector of the port of San Juan, Porto
Rlco' upon merchandise imported into that
port from New York after May l. 1900
and since the Foraker act
rms act requires all merchandise" looming
into Porto Rico from the United States tC
De entered at the several ports of entry
upon payment of 10 per centum of duties
which are required 10 be levied collected
ana paid upon articles of merchandise i'm
ported from foreign countries"
A demurrer was interposed by the dis
trlct attorney upon the ground that the
court had no jurisdiction OF the subject of
The action. and also that the complaint did
not state facts sufficient to constitute a
cause of action. The demurrer to the com
plant for insufficiency was sustained and
the petition dismissed
MT Justice Brown delivered the opinion
or the court as follows:
ms case raises the question of the CON-
sttutionality of the Foraker act so far as
II hxes the duties to be paid upon merchant
oize imported into Porto Rico from the port
of New York. 20
The validity Of this requirement is at.
tackled upon the ground of its violation OF
that clause of the Constitution declaring
that no tax duty shall be paid on ar.