The Wichita daily eagle., 1904-05-06
DUTIES WERE LEGAL.
Court of Claims Decides in Favor of
the Government.

Washington. May 5.-The ourt Of claims
today decided that duties collected on
goods shipped from the United States
to the Philippines after the treaty of
peace with Spain and before the estab-
lishment of civil government, were right
fully collected although by military au-
thority and not by law. The decision fol-
lows the insular decision of the supreme
court in that the Philippines are United
States territory. The case decided was
the claim Of Warner. Barnes and Com
pany, British corporation. which sued
the United States for $81,126.
Other claims resting on exactly the
same foundation aggregate between ST.
ooG0 and $500 900. BY the decision this
amount will be saved to the government
Warner, Barnes & Co., sued for tariffs
collected at Manila upon importations of
merchandise from United States after
the treaty of peace with Spain, and it
was argued that under the authority of
the insuar case lately decided by the
supreme court of the United States the
levy and collection Of such tariffs was
Illegal for the reason that at the time
of such collection the Philippine archi-
pelago was not "A foreign country in re-
spect to the United States after the ex-
change of ratiiications of the treaty by
the governments of the United States
and Spain
Judge Wright in rendering the opinion,
followed the decision in the insular case
and decided that the Philippine islands
were not foreign country in respect TO
the United States. but distinguished the
case from the insuIar cases. holding
that a state Of war existed through
out the islands between the United
States and the Filipinos to the
extent that the treaty with Spain and
all other merely civil laws was for the
time being suspended and superseded by
military law. until such time as it might
be possible To establish civil admnistra-
tive and judicial authority to enforce the
civil law, and that during such period OF
suspension of the civil law the power of
the military commander was absolute.
and that he might lawfully prohibit or
restrict trade or commerce and as a
condition to commerce within his military
district, might impose contribution to as
sist it in the expenses of the war.
The court held that the tariffs paid
by Warner. Barnes and company were
not levied or collected by virtue of the
statutes of the United States. nor by
authority Of any general law; nor in the
exercise of the civil power OF the GOV
ernment
That the president as commander-in-
chief Of the army and navy, by whose
ORDER the collections were made had the
same powers IN time Of war as other
civilized governments and that this ex-
ercise Of them needed no authority or
ratification by congress 10 give his action
in that respect effective force. although
congress did, as a matter of fact. raitfy
the same.
The opinion Of the court is further TO
the effect that the privilege OF sailing
away with the goods was not prohibited
to Warner. Barnes & Co. and while it
was prohibited from landing with the
merchandise without first making pay
ment OF the duties this did not deprive
the payment of its voluntary character
and II is held that there was acquiescence
IN the payment and use OF the money so
paid. and Judgment was given that the
plaintiffs could not recover
officials Of the war department were
very much gratifed over the decision
The case for the United states was pre-
pared and argued by Judge Charles E
Magoon. law officer Of the insular bu-
reau Of the war department