New-York tribune., 1907-05-28

Collection of Duties as Military
Contribution" UpheId.

Washington. May 27.-In the case of c. EIeinszen
& Co agt. the United States, decided today bv
the Supreme Court OF the United States favorahIy
to the government, the court again called upon
70 deal with the effect of the executive order Of
President Mckinley Of July u, 1898, providing for
the collection of duties imports into the Philip
pine Islands 'as military contribution" Heinszen
and his partner were subjects of the Emperor of
Germany, and at the time the order went into
effect and afterward engaged in business in Ma
Mia In the years 1899 1890 1901 they imported
merchandise from the United States into the islands
on which they paid s6,o27 duty and suit was
brought the United States Court of Claims to
recover the money, on the ground that after the
signing of the treaty of peace with Spain the
Philippines not foreign country. and that
consequently no imports could be imposed on goods
shipped from the United States proper 10 the
islands The opinion was by Justice White and
reversed the decision OF the Court of Claims which
was in support of the contention Of the claimants
The decision departure from previous rulings
by the court the question. and this departure
due the fact that the court sustained the
act Of Congress of 1906 relieving a previous law Of
the antiquities which found TO characterize
early statute Justices Brewer and Peckham
dissented
Announcing the only question involved to be
whether the Court of Claims erred in refusing TO
give effect TO the act Of 1906 which ratified the
collections Of duties levied under the Presidential
order, Justice White said:
AS the duties collected were illegal, is
mat for the purpose OF testing validity of the
act OF Congress, the fact OF such collections must
be put out OF view and the ratifying the exac-
ton must be treated If it were solely an origi-
nal exercise by Congress of the taxing power This
being done, IL is said. reduces the case To the in
quiry Had Congress power. years after good. which
were entitled TO free entry had been brought into
the Philippine Islands retroa ctvely impose tariff
goods into that country? But the proposition becs
the question for decision by shutting out from view
the potential fact that when the goods were brosh
into the Philippine Islands there was a tariff In
existence under which duties We're eXacted in the
name OF the United States. Indeed the contention
goes further even than this. since IT entirely dis
regards the important consideration that although
the duties Illegally exacted the ieeality wa \
not the result of inherent of power in the
United States to have authorized the imposition or
the duties. but simply from the failure 10
delegate to the official the authority essential 10
give immediate validity to his conduct in enforc-
ing the payment OF the duties And when these
misconceptions borne in mind, IL results tha I
the unsoundness OF the proposition relied upon Is
, demonstrated by the application Of the elementary
principle Of ratification which have previously
referred. Moreover the fallacy which the PROPOSE
ton involves becomes Yet more obvious when II is
observed that the contention he formu-
lated without misstatng the nature of the act Of
Congress; in other words. without treating tha t
act retroactive legislation enacting tariff. when
on its very face the act is but exercise of the
conceded power dependent upon the law OF agency
TO ratify done behalf Of the United States
which the United States could have originally au-
thortzed-