The age-herald., 1901-05-27
Solicitor General Richards Has Prepared a StatsmGntDf
 the Questions Involved SEVERAL CEtS REVIEWED
United States Supreme CourtEAd journs Today Until November-ltss De.
 cision Fixes Relationsaof
 islands to United States6

Washington, May 2e-owing- to sthefact that the United States Supreme Court will adjourn tomorrow for the term. the opinion is quite general that the court will deliver it's opinion in the insuiar cases which were heard last winter. In view of this probability. Solicitor General Richards has prepared an official state ment, showing the questions involved in the various cases which is as follows;
 The particular duties drawn in question.
 All these cases are before us They raise the validity under the constitution under the following exactions,
 l. Duties on goods imported into the United States from the Philippines after the ratification of the treaty. The four teen diamond rings case, Pepke, claimant.
 2. Duties on goods imported into Porto Rico from the United States during the military occupation of the island after the signing of the protocol and before the ratification of the treaty of Paris. Such were some of the duti collected in the Armstrong case.
 g. Duties collected on goods imported into Porto Rico from the United States during the military occupation, but after the cession of Porto Rico by the ratffica,- ton of the treaty and before the passage of the Porto Rican act. Such duties were collected in the Armstrong case and in the first Dooley case
 l Duties collected on goods -impor+ ed in- to the United States from Porto leo af- ter the ratification of the treaty and be- fore the taking effect of the Porto Rican act. Such were duties exacted in the Goetz case and in the Delima case
 5. Duties collected on goods coming into the United States from Porto Rico after | the Porto Rican act took effect | The validity Of these exactfons ia | brought into question in the Downs case. G. Duties collected on goods coming in- to Porto Rico from the United States af- ter the taking effect of the Porto Rican act. Such were the duties exacted in the second Dooley case.
 2. Duties collected on goods imported in- to the United States from Hawaii after the annexation and before the Hawaiian act went into effect. Such were the tu- ties in the Crossman case.
 Question of jurisdiction.
 The propriety of the course of procedure IS In question in all these cases except the fourteen diamond rings case. This results from the different methods adopt ed by counsel in testing the constituional- ity of the custom exactions.
 In the Goetz and Crossman cases The duties were paid under protest and the procedure laid down in the customs ad- ministrative act was followed This. the government believes to be the proper method. But if counsel in the cases to be mentioned are correct then this course was probably wrong.
 In the De Lima and the Downs cases the duties paid were paid under protest and suit brought against the collector to recover back This the government thinks was wrong.
 In the Dooley cases and the Armstrong cases the duties were paid under protest and suit brought against the United States to recover back, the Armstrong case being brought in the court of claims and the Dooley cases in the United States circuit court. This the government thinks was wrong. If the Jurisdiction at points made by the government were sustained there would still remain the fourteen diamond ring cases. the Goetz case and the Crossman case, which raise the fundamental question under the treaty. but don't involve the validity of the Porto Rican act
 Question Involved.
 The primary question is, whether the cession contained in the treaty of Paris made Porto Rico andft the Philippines an internal part of the United States, within the meaning of the provision requiring ''all duties, imposts and excises to be uniform throughout the United States"
 The secondary question is whether the temporary revenue provision in the Porto Rican act levying duties on goods com ing from Porto Rico into the United States and on goods coming from the United States into Porto Rico to be used for the benefit of Porto Rico. until the insular government could provide revenue of it's own violates the constitutional provision that no tax or duty shall be laid on arti- cles exported from any State''
 Like the primary question, is the ques- tion raised in the Hawaiian case, namely. whether the resolution of annexation made Hawaii an integral part of the United States within the meaning of the limita- tion of the taxing clause. so that in stantly our custom laws applied there, notwithstanding the express provision of the resolution that the existing customs laws of the Hawaiian republic should con- tinue in force until Congress should pass an act extending our customs laws to the islands