The Columbia herald. [volume] (Columbia, Tenn.) 18??-1935, 1901-05-31
IN INCORRECT FORECAST.
The Constitution 1t Seems, Does
Follow the Flag in Our
InSular Possessions.
TIE DECISION IN THE DELIMA CASE.
Porto Rico Not n Foreign County,
within the Meaning of the Tnrih
laws. Hut N Territory of the
United states, nnd Duties Were
illegally ENactcd.

Inlleu states, una
illegally ENHcted.
Washington, May 2s.-Justicc
Brown, of the United States supreme
court, announced the decision of that
court in the insular cases. The an
nouncemeut Of the courts opinion
was begun at 1921. The main opinion
was handed down in the Delima case.
Justice Brown then announced the
decision of the court on point of ju-
risdiction. holding thee ourt had juris-
dicton.
The Case ut Bar.
The Delima case involved the case
of importation of goods into the
United States from Porto Rico after
the ratification of the treaty of Paris
aud before the passage of the Porto
Rican act.
Delima & Co., doing business i'm
New York imported from San Juanr
p. r., during the months of june and
July, 1899 certain sugars, the prod
uct of Porto Rico. Upon these su-
gars the collector at New York de-
manded and collected about $4,000
as customs duties.
Sued to Recover Duties.
Delima & Co. sued Bidwell, the col
lectOr as an individual in the SUI
preme court of the state of New York
TO recover back the duties thus paid
amounting in all to S13,1 alleging
that they we're unlawfully demand
ed, in violation of the constitution,
and collected by duress, the collector
eXaeting the payment of the duties
as a condition to the delivery of the
sugars. On the petition of the col
lector the suit was removed to the
circuit court of the United States for
the southern district OF New York,
which sustained a demurrer to the
complaint both on the ground that no
cause for action was stated and that
the court had no jurisdiction. From
the Judgment dismissng the COM
plaint Delima & Co. prosecute error
from this court.
Could Not BE Foreign and Domestic.
, Justice Brown said that whether
thes ugars imported from or into
Porto Rico were dutiable depends up
on whether Porto Rico is foreign
country. He held that the right to ac-
quire territory involves the right to
) govern and control it by congress,
but he said that country could not
be both foreign and domestic.
The opinion was opposed to the
) contention of the government, and
concluded that at the time the duties
were collected Porto Rico was not
foreign country, but territory of
; the United States.
: The Courts Conclusion.
Justic" Brown concluded as follows:
"lf an act of congress be necessary
/ to convert a foreign country into do
;. nestle territory, the question at once
, suggests itself, what is the character
. of the legislation demanded for this
purpose viii an act appropriating
money for it's purchase be suificient2
;. propTiating the duties collected
upon imports to and from such coun-
r try for the benefit of its government
i be sufficient? Apparently not. VIII
II acts making appropriations for its
postal service, for the establishment
: of lighthouses, for the maintenance Of
quarantine stations, for erecting pub
8 lie duties upon commerce be adequate
for that purpose? None of these, nor
all togc' her. will bc sufficient, if the
contention of the goverISment b.
sound, since acts embracing all these
VI provisions have been passed in CON
nection with Porto Rico, and il is in
d sisted that it is still a foreign coun-
IS try within the meaning of the tariff
y laws. We are unable to acquiesce in
:. this assumption that a territory may
a be at the same time both foreign and
I; domestic.
Porto Rico Not Foreign Country.
d I'VE arc, therefore. of opinion that
J. at the time these duties were levied
le Porto Rico was not a foreign country
le within the meaning of the tariff laws
but a territory of the United States;
that the duties were illegally exacted
and that the plaintiffs are entitled 10
recover them back.
The judgment OF the circuit couI
for the southern district of New
% York is, therefore. reversed. and the
!, case remtnded to that court for fur
20 ther proceedings in consonance witr
n this opinion"
a Dissenting Opinion.
sr Justice Mckenna delivered the dis
seuiing opinion of the supreme court
In the insular cases. He was Joined
In that opinion by Justices Shirss and
White.
Is THE DISSENTING OPINION.