New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1904-05-06
GOVERNMENT WINS SUIT.
PHILIPPINE DECISION.
Duties Rightfally Collected Under
Military authority, Court Holds.
IFRoM THE TRIBUNE BUREAU


Washington, May 5.-The United States Court
of Claims to-day sustained the action of the
military government OF the Philippine Islands
in imposing duties on goods from the United
States entering the port of Manila In the period
between the date of proclaiming the treaty of
peace and the passage OF the act Of Congress
approved on March s, 1902, specifically author
izing such duties merchandise from the
United States. In the insular cases the United
States Supreme Court held that such duties
could not be collected in that period on goods
from the United States brought into Porto Rico
and in the fourteen diamond rings case the
same court held that merchandise from the
Philippine Islands was entitled to free entry
into the United States after the treaty Of peace
ratified. When the decision in the -four
teen diamond rings rendered II was
feared that it would prevent the Philippine
government from further collections of duties
American goods and seriously cripple its
finances, but after careful examination, Judge
Charles Z. Magoon, the law officer of the Bureau
Of Insular Affairs. prepared an elaborate re-
port, taking the position that state Of war
prevailed in the islands as a result of the insur-
rection the President was authorized to con-
rinue the collection of such duties a war
measure. Secretary Root approved this view
and advised the officials of the Philippine gov
eminent to continue collection of the duties.
Warner. Barnes & Co. British importing firm
in the islands. brought suit 10 test the correct
ness of this doctrine. The amount involved In
this action was S162, 253. but the sum collected
from the importers and which the government
would have been called to refund il the de-
cision had not been in it's favor Is nearly $1,000.
600 The case was prepared and argued for the
government by Judge Magoon. Officials of the
War Department expressed much qualification
over the decision.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
Justice Wright. and is essentially as follows:
The important question in issue Is whether
exacton of the tariffs on mportations by the
plaintiff from the United States into the port of
Manila which were levied and collected by the
military authorities can be sustained. If such
exactOn in time of peace in the Philippine
Islands, when the civil law prevailed or could
be enforced by the civil authorities. and after
the exchange OF Publications OF the Treaty OF
Peace between the United States and Spain.
under the insuar cases. the collection was IL
legal. for the United States was no foreign
country TO said islands within the meaning OF
the United States tariff laws
STATE OF WAR EXISTED.
The single question remains: II a state OF
war existed in the Philippine Islands. did that
ipso facto Justify the exaction of the tariffs
that were collected? That such war did exist
Is beyond dispute. An organized armed military
force of over fifty thousand men was opposed 10
and cOntestng with the United States the right
of sovereignty. the treaty with Spain notwith-
standing. To overcome this armed force, the
United States employed 26.46S OF its military
forces I'm 2. IA separate engagements, lost 4,3I4
Of It's soldiers by death from all causes and 3.O22
were wounded in action. Important belligerent
rights conceded to insurgents. and the laws
of war were applied. Their soldiers when capt
urT0 were treated as prisoners OF wal anu not
held for treason and generally all things were
done as IL the war had been a public one with
a foreign nation. The President and Congress
recognized a condition OF war in the archipelaSo,
and applied the usual measures incident 10
public war. and invoked all the military power
and authority in its prosecution.
a thus recognized and prosecuted ought
forever to set at rest the fact OF it's existence.
and the acts Of the legislative and executive
notice. should be equally binding upon the
judicial department OF the government as upon
the legislative and executive. Any decision TO
the contrary would have no effect except in the
case In which IL might be made, because the
fact could not be so changed, and will exist in
history a fact for all future time
When the Publications OF the treaty of peace
We're exchanged the treaty had the force OF law.
but by reason OF the war existing in the islands
all civil law was superseded by military law
until 1t might be possible 10 put the treaty and
civil law in force and establish proper admin
istrative and judicial authorities. The vital
point is that until the United States had sup
pressed armed resistance against Its authority !
ana established It's sovereignty II could not give
the effect to the treaty contemplated by the high
contracting parties, as in the case OF Dooley
and other insular cases. II the court had in |
mind the facts disclosed by this record. II could
hardly have made more pertinent exception
than it did in the Dooley case. where it was |
said:
His military commanders power to administer |
would not he without certain restrictions-in
words. they would not extend beyond the necessi- |
ties Of the
No war existed in Porto Rico. While the
government there for the time being in the |
military commander he was not called upon TO |
exercise the military authority incident to a |
state of war. nor did the necessities of the case
demand the exercise of such power
In time of war within the military district no |
restrictions are placed upon the power and au-
thOrity of the military commander, except such |
as are imposed by the common consent of all |
civilized people. He may prohibit or restrict all
trade or commerce within his lines. AS con-
ditiOn to commerce within his military district ]
he may impose contribution to assist In the ex-
penses of the war or In giving such care to in |
digent non-comhatants humanity may re-
quire. These principles elementary and |
have their existence in long established and |
universal usage.
MILITARY TARIFF LEGAL
The tariffs paid by the PLAINTIFF were not |
levied collected by virtue OF the United States
customs statutes, nor In exercise of civil powers
of government, the latter never having been in |