Case Name: WILLIAM STEWART McLEOD, AS SOLE SURVIVING PARTNER OF McLEOD & CO. v. THE UNITED STATES
Court: Supreme Court of the United States
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1913-06-10
Citations: 48 Ct. Cl. 512
Docket Number: 
Parties: WILLIAM STEWART McLEOD, AS SOLE SURVIVING PARTNER OF McLEOD & CO. v. THE UNITED STATES.
Judges: 
Reporter: United States Court of Claims Reports
Volume: 48
Pages: 512–514

Head Matter:
WILLIAM STEWART McLEOD, AS SOLE SURVIVING PARTNER OF McLEOD & CO. v. THE UNITED STATES.
[45 C. Cls. R., 339; 229 U. S. R., 416.]
On the claimants appeal.
Merchants, subjects of Great Britain, doing business in Manila, ship a cargo of rice from Saigon, China, to Cebu, Philippine Islands, after the signing of the treaty of peace, but before its ratification. The rice is shipped upon an American vessel and consigned to the claimant’s firm in Cebu. The government of the Philippine Republic is then in power and administering the civil affairs of the islands. Its officers refuse to allow the cargo to be landed until duties are paid. After Cebu passes into the possession of the United States the military collector of customs at Manila requires tlie claimants to pay to Mm duties upon tlie same cargo of rice and compels payment by refusing the claimants permission to do further business at the customhouse in Manila until the duties are paid.
The court below decides:
I.The rule of international law is well settled that between the high contracting parties the exchange of ratifications has a retroactive effect confirming the treaty from its date, but that where individual rights are affected it is not to be considered as coneluded'until there be an exchange of ratifications.
II.As between the high contracting parties the title of the United States to the island of Cebu vested on the 10th December, 1898, but so far as it may affect third parties the title did not vest until the 11th April, 1899, the date of the ratification of the treaty,
III. Technically a state of war existed between the United States and Spain until the 11th April, 1899, notwithstanding that the protocol, 12th August, 1898, suspended active hostilities.
IV. Where British subjects were doing business at Manila under the American flag, it being In the military possession of the United States, they owed temporary allegiance to the United States. For them to trade with Spanish belligerents was forbidden by international law.
V.Where the military authorities at Manila granted British subjects doing business there the privilege of trading with persons outside of the military lines, who were then belligerents, upon condition that the duties upon importations into all parts of the Philippine Islands should be paid at Manila, the exaction of these duties at a later date could be properly enforced.
VI. If the island of Cebu be regarded as American territory after the signature of the treaty of peace but before the exchange of ratifications and while it was still in possession of the Philippine Republic, it was nevertheless unlawful for British merchants doing business in Manila to trade with rebellious subjects of the United States in Cebu. The distinction between this ease and Rice v. The United States (4 Wheat. R., 246) pointed out.
VII. The action of the military collector of customs at Manila in collecting duties upon importations into the Philippine ports in the actual possession of other authority than that of the United States was ratified by the act 80th June, 1906 (34 Stat. L., p. 636).
The decision of the court below is reversed on the ground that the court below was in error in holding the duties collectible at Manila under the facts of the case and in adjudging that the act of June 30 ratified the conduct of the military authorities at Manila in compelling such payment.
June 10, 1913.

Opinion:
Mr. Justice Day
delivered the opinion of the Supreme Court