Court Opinion

ID: 9417872
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-02 20:41:30.68765+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:12:58.263266
License: Public Domain

Mr. Chief Justice Fuller
delivered' tbe opinion of the court.
Emil J. Pepke, a citizen of the United States and of the State of North Dakota, enlisted in the First Regiment of' the North-Dakota United States Yolunteer Infantry, and was assigned for duty with his regiment in the island of Luzon, in the Philippine Islands,- and continued in the military service of the United States until the regiment was ordered to réturn, and, on arriving at San Francisco, was discharged September 25, 1899.
He brought with him from Luzon fourteen diamond rings, which he had there purchased, q>r acquired through a loan, subsequent" to the ratification of the- treaty of peace between the United States and Spain; February 6, 1899, and the proclamation thereof by the President of the United States, April 11, 1899.
In May, 1900, in Chicago, these rings were seized by a customs officer as having beqn -imported contrary to law, without entry, or declaration, or payment of duties, and an information was filed, to enforce the forfeiture thereof.
To this Pepke filed a plea setting up the facts, and claiming that the rings were not subject to customs, duties ; the plea was held insufficient; forfeiture and sale wrnre decreed; and this writ of error was prosecuted.
The tariff act of July 24, 1897, 30 Stat. 151, in regulation of commerce with foreign nations, levied duties “ upon all articles imported from foreign countries.”
Were these rings, acquired by this soldier after the ratifica-, tion of the treaty was proclaimed, when brought by him from Luzon to California, on his return with his regiment to be discharged, imported from "a foreign country ?
This question has already been answered in the negative, in respect of Porto Pico, in De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 1, and unless the cases can be distinguished, which we are of opinion they cannot be in this particular, that decision is controlling-.
*178The Philippines, like Porto Rico, became, by virtue of the treaty, ceded conquered territory or territory ceded by way of indemnity. The territory ceased to be situated, as. Castine was when occupied by the British forces in the war of-1812, or as Tampico was when occupied by the troops of the United States during the- Méxican war, “ cases of temporary possession of territory by lawful and regular governments at war with the country of which the territory so. possessed was part.” Thorington v. Smith, 8 Wall. 10. The Philippines were not simply occupied but acquired, and having been granted and delivered to the United States, by their former master, were no longer under the sovereignty of any foreign nation.
In Cross v. Harrison, 16 How. 164, the question was whether goods imported from a foreign country into California after the cession were subject to our tariff laws, and this court held that they were.
In De Lima v. Bidwell the question was whether goods imported into New York from Porto Rico, after the cession, were subject to duties imposed by the act of 1897 on “ articles imported from foreign countries,” and this court held that they were not. ' That act regulated commerce with foreign nations, and Porto Rico had ceased to be within that category; nor could territory be foreign and domestic at the same time.
Among other things it was there said: “ The theory that a country remains foreign with respect to the tariff laws until Congress has acted by embracing it rvithin the customs union, presupposes that a country may be domestic for one purpose and foreign for another. It may undoubtedly become necessary for the adequate administration of a domestic territory to pass a specialjact providing the proper machinery and officers, as the President would have no authority, except under the war power, to administer it himself; but no act is necessary to make it domestic territory if once it has been ceded to the United States. . . . This theory also presupposes that territory may be held indefinitely by the United States; that it may be treated in every particular, except for tariff purposes, as domestic territory; that laws may be enacted and enforced by officers of the United States sent there for that purpose; that insurrec*179tions may be suppressed, wars carried on, revenues collected, taxes imposed; in short, that everything may be done which a government can do within its own boundaries, and yet that the territory may still remain a foreign country. That this state of things may continue for years, for a century even, but that until Congress enacts otherwise, it still remains a foreign country. To hold that this can be done as matter of law we deem to be pure judicial legislation. ¥e find no warrant for it in the Constitution or in the'powers conferred upon this court. It is true the nonaction of Congress may occasion a temporary inconvenience; but it does not follow that courts of justice are authorized to remedy it by inverting the ordinary meaning of words.”
No reason is perceived for any different ruling as to the Philippines. By the third article of the treaty Spain ceded to the United States “the archipelago known as the Philippine Islands,” and the United States agreed to pay to Spain the sum of twenty million dollars within three months. The treaty was ratified; Congress appropriated the money; the ratification was proclaimed. The treaty-making.power; the executive power; the legislative power, concurred in the completion of the transaction.
The Philippines thereby ceased, in the language of the treaty, “to be Spanish.” Ceasing to be Spanish, they ceased to be foreign country. They came under the complete and absolute sovereignty and dominion of the United States, and so became territory of the United States over which civil governmcnt could be established. The result was the same although there was no stipulation that the native inhabitants should be incorporated into the body politic, and none securing to them the right to choose their nationality. Their allegiance became duo to the United States and they became entitled to its protection.
But it is said that the case of the Philippines is to be distinguished from that of Porto ítico because on February 14-, 1899, after the ratification of the treaty, the Senate resolved, as given in the margin,* that it was not intended to incorporate- the *180inhabitants of the Philippines into citizenship of the United States, nor to permanently°annex those islands.
We need not consider the force and effect of a resolution of this sort, if adopted by Congress, not like that of April 20,1898, in respect of Cuba,'preliminary to the declaration of war, but after title had- passed by ratified cession. It is enough that this was a joint resolution; that it was adopted by the Senate by a vote of 26 to 22, not two thirds of a quorum : and that it is absolutely without legal significance on the question before us. The meaning of the treaty cannot be controlled by subsequent explanations of some of those who may have voted to ratify it. What view the House might have taken as to the intention of the Senate in ratifying the treaty we are not informed, nor is it material; and if any implication from the action referred to could properly be indulged, it would seem to be that two thirds of a quorum of the Senate did not consent to the ratification on the grounds indicated.
It is further contended that a distinction exists in that while complete possession of Porto Eico was taken by the United States, this was not so as to thp Philippines,.because of the armed resistance of the nativo inhabitants to a greater or less extent.
We must decline to assume that the government wishes thus to disparage the. title of the United States, or to place itself in the position of waging a Avar of conquest.
The sovereignty of Spain over the Philippines and possession under claim of title had existed for a long series of years.prior to the war with the United States. The.fact that there‘were insurrections against her or that uncivilized tribes may have defied her will did not affect the validity of her title. She.grantod the islands to the United States, and the grantee in accepting them took nothing less than the whole grant.
*181If those in insurrection against Spain continued in insurrection against the United States, the legal title and possession of the latter remained unaffected.
We do not understand that it is claimed that in carrying on the pending hostilities the government is seeking to subjugate the people of a foreign' country, but, on the contrary, that it is preserving order and suppressing insurrection in territory of the United States. It follows that the possession of the United States is adequate possession under legal title, and this cannot be asserted for one purpose and denied for another. We dismiss the suggested distinction as untenable. .
But it is sought to detract from the weight of the ruling in De Lima v. Bidwell because one of the five justices concurring in the judgment in that case concurred in the judgment in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244.
In De Lima v. Bidwell, Porto Eico was held not to. be a foreign country after the cession, and that a prior act exclusively applicable to foreign countries became inapplicable.
In Downes v. Bidwell, the conclusion of a majority of the court was that an act of Congress levying duties on goods imported from Porto Eico into New York, not in conformity with the provisions of the Constitution in respect to the imposition of duties, imposts and excises, was valid. Four of the members of the court .dissented from and five.concurred, though not on the same grounds, in this conclusion. The justice who delivered the opinion in De Lima’s case was one of the majority, and was of opinion that although by the cession Porto Eico ceased to be a foreign country, and became a territory of the United States and domestic, yet that it was merely “ appurtenant ” territory, and “ not a part of the United States within the revenue clauses of the Constitution.”
This view placed the territory, though not foreign, outside of the restrictions applicable to interstate commerce, and treated the power of Congress, when affirmatively exercised over a territory, situated .as supposed, as uncontrolled by the provisions of the Constitution in respect of national taxation. The distinction was drawn between a special act in respect of the particular country, and a general and prior act only applicable to *182countries foreign to ours in every sense. The latter was obliged to conform to the rule of uniformity, which was wholly disregarded in the former.
The ruling in the case of De Lima remained unaffected, and controls that under consideration. And this is so notwithstanding four members of the majority in the De Lima case were of opinion that Porto Pico did not become by the cession subjected to the exercise of governmental power in the levy of duties unrestricted by constitutional limitations.

Decree reversed and cause remanded xoith directions to quash the i/nformation.

 “Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That by the ratification of the treaty of peace with Spain.it is not intended, to incorporate the inhabitants *180of the Philippine Islands into citizenship of the United States, nor is it intended to permanently annex said islands as an integral part of the territory of the United States; but it is the intention of the United States to establish on said islands a government suitable to the wants and conditions of the inhabitants of said islands to prepare them for local self-government, and in due time to make such disposition of said islands as will best promote the interests of the United States and the inhabitants of said islands.” Oong. Rec. 55th Cong. 3d Sess. vol. 32, p. 1847.