The San Francisco call., 1905-05-18
ISLAND TARIFF
CASE REOPENED
Government Seeks to Secure
a ReheariHg of Famous
Suit Affecting Philippines
GREAT SUM INVOLVED
Controversy Concerns Con-
struction TO Be Placed
on Presidents War Order

WASHINGTON, May ia petition OF
the Government for a rehearing in the
cases OF the United States VS.. Peabody &
Co. and the United States VS.. Warner,
Barnes & Co, involving the -eonstruc-
ton Of the Presidents Philippine tariff
order of July Y, 1898, was submitted to
the Supreme Court of the United States
to-day. The petition was presented by
Solicitor General Hoyt and was supported
in brief By Attorney General Moody.
The case was decided a few weeks ago
adversely TO the contentious of the United
States. and the decision was regarded by
the Government as calculated TO impose
a heavy burden on the treasury. The At
torney General concludes his statement
as follows:
The reason for the importance 10 the Gov
ernlnent of the ground which this is
tol be decided, IL il must be decided in favor
OF the complsinants. is that there are doubtless
claims amounting TO more than a million dol
lars, on which suit was not brought before
July ]. 1902. the date Of the ratifying act, but
on IL suits have been and will be brought in
view Of the present decision Of the court For
these reasons we think il of the utmost inn
portance 10 the Government that an oppor-
tunity should be given for a reargument. in
which the question Of construction and ratif-
catiea may be given much fuller eopsidera-
ton, in view Of all the history of this legis-
lation, than, as it is respectfully submitted, it
mas heretofore hao-
In his petition Holt recalls the fact
that the decision was based upon the
fourteen diamond rings case, but contends
that the cases are fundamentally differ
ent. The court held that the President S
order expired by its own terms when the
war with Spain came to an end, but the
Solicitor General says:
It is difficult to see why, because the ex-
ercise Of the war power was initiated under a
foreign war, il ceases the end of that war
and does not extend into a much Sc
rious war, simply because the territory was
domestic. To entertain this view, it seems TO
me, is TO disregard the doctrines laid down in
tain the exercise of executive power for which
the Government contends in dealing with an
nsurrectionary in domestic territory The
President consciously and Intentionally i'm
misled into unknowingiy giving authority
in blank
Without magnifying the case it is possible,
/ think, that while the opinion of the court
strikes down only the tariff on merchandise
from the United States, the legality of the en-
tire structure of civil government after the
ratification OF the treaty is involved and may
be denied hereafter relative to other features
not presented foreSeen If the court ad-
here unqualifedly to the logic Of this opinion.
The court would not regard as controlling
either the large amount of money involved or
the fact that the claimants added the duties
to the price of their goods. But it is worth
while to point out (as accentuating the great
Importance of this case) that the refunds
called for under the decision of the court will
reach the sum of 81. o0o, 900, and that this vast
sum will be paid in large part TO claimants,
many Of them aliens, who public records
show were on the whole, opposing rather than
supporting the authority of the United States.