The age-herald., 1901-05-28
THE CONSTITUTION DOES
 FOLLOW THE F7AG
Continued from page seven.)

Continued from page Seven)
 easy definition. Between the extremes there was other relations which Porto Rico might sustain to the United States and it could be demonstrated that Porto Rico occupied enc of these other relations and its products hence were subject to duties The history of our country, said Justice McKenna, has examples of the acquisition of foreign territory, and find ing these examples and authorities in the way, the opinion of the court attempts to answer or distinguish or overrule them He then cited the cases of the United States vs. Rice and Fleming vs. Page, re- ferred to by the majority, and said the opinion expressed in Fleming vs. Page that the boundaries of our country could not be enlarged or restricted by the ad- vance or retreat of armies and that whether duties should be levied depended on Congress granting authority should be accepted as wise and as considerate of the different functions of the executive leg islative and judicial departments and of their independence. Distinctions, he con tended, always had been recognized be- tween territory acquired and that which was within the acknowledged limits of the United States.
 In American Insurance Company vs Canter, Justice Johnson. in speaking of the acquisition of Florida, said that the court had most explicit proof that the understanding 'of our public function aries Is that the government and laws of the United States do not extend to such territory by the ere act of cession."
 Justice McKenna then called attention to the fact that after California's an- nexation our customs laws had been ex- tended over it and asked why was this necessary If they applied of their own To a1c ott < asserting that without precedent it would be irresistibly impelled to the conclusion that by cession of territory that ter ritory automatically became a part of the United States. The treaty, he said could not have an automatic force con- trary to its terms or greater than them. By the mere act of acquisition of a for eign country we did not endanger our tariff system and the revenues of the government
 Justice Gray announced that he like wise dissented from the majority opin- ion. saving briefly that It's judgment ap- peared to him irreconcilable with the unanimous opinion of this court fin Elem ing vs. Page and with the opinions of the majority of the justices in the case decided today of Downes vs. Bidwell.
 Lower Court Reversed.
 These dissenting opinions delivered, T., following the authority of the Delma case, reversed the judgments of the court below in the cases of Goetze vs. the United States and CroSSman vs the Unit ed States, both brought here from the United States Court for the Southern dis trict of New York. In the GoetZe case a duty levied on an importation of tobacco from Porto Rico into the United States on June 6, 1899, after the ratification of the treaty of peace and before the pass age of the Porto Rican act was involved, and In the Crossman case the levy of duty and in the Crossan case the levy of a duty on an importation of liquors from Hawaii into the United States in April, 1900, after the passage of the Hawaiian annexation resolution and before the making of the act providing a government for Hawaii. In each case the board of general ap- praisers held the importation dutiable and in each case this decision was re- versed.
 The court then passed on the case of Doley vs. the United States, being an ac- ton brought to recover certain duties paid under protest at San Juan on im- portations from New York between July 26, 1898, and May l, 1900. The first uues- ton was whether this action being to recover back money from the United States, should not have been brought into the Court of Claims, but the court held 1t was properly brought before the United States District Court for Southern New York.
 The court said the duties assessed were of three classes-those levied under Gen. eral Miles order extending the Spanish regulations pending further action, those prescribed by the commander-in-chief the President, until the cesson of the island, and third those subsequently levied. The court said there could be no doubt as to the lawful exaction of duty under the war power. General Miles was fully justified by the laws of war. But from the date of notice of ratification of the treaty of peace Porto Rico ceased to be a foreign country and the right of the collector to exact duties ceased with the exchange of notifications, though the right to administer the government of course continued. From the moment the United States ceased to be a foreign country with respect to Porto Rico and until Congress acted. importations were free from levy of duty whether from one place to the other or vice versa In our opinion the authority of the commander in-chief ceased with the ratification of the treaty of peace and the right to free entry of goods continued until Congress constitutionally acted
 Juices Gray. Shiras, White and Mo Kenna dissented. The dssension was based on the ground that Porto Rico did not ipso facto become a part of the United States so far as the tariff laws are concerned the moment the treaty of peace was ratified.
 The case of Armstrong vs. the United States involving the validity of duty assessed on goods shipped to Porto Rico