The Washington herald., 1907-01-12
RULES AGAINST GOVERNMENT
Court of Claims Holds UncOnstitu-
tiOnal Philippine Customs Act.
Law Sought TO Validate Tariff Col
IectiOns Declared Illegal by Su-
Preme COurt-NiIIions Involved.

After the Supreme Court Of the United
States had affirmed its decision on re-
hearing In the cases Of Warner Barnes
< Co. and Lincoln VS.. United States, 10
the effect that the duties levied. under the
Presidents order Of July 1, 1888, on goods
taken into the Philippine Islands from the
United States subsequent 10 the ratifica-
ton Of the treaty with Spain april II,
1882. and prior 70 tariff legislation by
Congress. were illegally exacted, and
should be refunded 70 the plaintiffs, Con
gress passed an act. at the close Of last
session, purporting and intended TO ratify
and validate all these collections and 10
prevent the claimant whose suits were
pending. from having any legal redress.
The Court Of Claims, however, before
whom this act Of June 80, 1906, has come
for construction, having been set I'D as q
ground for demurrer by the government
in the case Of Helnssen VS.. The United
States. has held that the act is null and
void. There We're other grounds Of de-
murrer which were overruled by the
court. In regard 10 the act Of last June,
Judge Barney, delivering the unanimous
opinion, says:
we fully recognize the rule that
court should never declare a legislative
act unconstitutional and thereby refuse 10
obey its mandate, except upon the most
careful consideration. and then only
where there is hardly room for reasonable
doubt In the present case, however, We
90 not regard the question as an open
sF-.
passage Of the act in question, declared
such a law 10 be unconstitutional as ap-
plicable 70 the case at bar, and in SO do
ing used the following language. IN COM
meuting upon the act Of March q. 1905
chapter $50 81 Stat. l., 15D, and which
was invoked by the counsel for the
United States as having curative force
under like circumstances;
AS the action in this case was brought
March I3, 1890, eleven days before the act
was passed, the right to recover the
money. sued for could not be taken away
by a subsequent act Of Congress. Plain
tiffs sue in assumpsit for money which
the collector has in his hands, justly and
equitably belonging TO them. To say that
Congress could by a subsequent act de-
prive them of the right TO prosecute this
action would be beyond its power. In
any event. it should not be interpreted so
as 10 make It retroactive.-De Lima vs..
BidweH IS L. 3, $4,000
After examining the cases Of curative
legislation, Judge Barney concludes as
follows:
IF the claimants had refused TO submit
10 the imposition of the tax in question
and had taken their merchandise into the
Philippine Islands clandestinely. thus
evading its payment. it would not be
claimed that they could be convicted Of
the crime OF smuggling; indeed. it would
not be cOntended that any duty could be
recovered Of them by virtue of said valid
atiug act OF Congress. This being SO, we
are confronted in this case with the
anomaly Of the claim that the Congress
by said act has imposed a burden upon
those who have peacefully submitted 10
the imposition of an Illegal TAX. trusting
to the courts for redress. which might
have been successfully avoided by dis
regard and contempt of the military au-
thorities of the government. 4 mere state
ment of this claim appears so shocking To
every sense Of justice and idea OF good
citizenship as TO need no argument 10
show its unsoundness
Several millions Of dollars are involved
in the decision, which will doubtless be
appealed by the government to the Su-
preme Court, and thus the subject will be
brought before it for the third time.