| Show PHILIPPINES ARE PART 1 OF THE UNITED STATES Tariff Duties Cannot Be Collected e Coming olT ng From the Islan T Dee Dec W v V were rendered in IC II th Ute Unites United States supreme ee rt today m Ia h the last Jut two of the inar test te eases One of them was that kewa as th tk f ring the re N NIi Ii of tile the t oost Star to m the lalands ti f it at view MA the 0 11 1 ii t e t a of 1 D ny o ot duty UtY a 0 oa goods soo shipped from freni New N W Yerk Berk rk to te Porto PortoRico Rico In the former ca case ca t tile the through Chief Justice roller Fuller held that the dia die diamond diemond mond mood rings brought In IH froni the Ute Philip Philippines Ph Philippines pines and over which t ease arose should bould have been bi exempt from duty un UD under UDder ander der the Parts Paris I treaty of ot o as that treaty made e be the th American territory The de leIeA In 6 e Philippine case closely followed fo that t of C the Uie Porto Rican case of at th tM the last a term In the Dooley Booby DOo y case c decided today it was wae held that the duty collected on goods carried from New York tt to Porto Porte Rise Rico was permissible but bet that it wax na in real reality realIty ity a tax for lar th Ute b benefit beneSt of the Porto Ricans the wel rather aUter than l ut an export duty 99 as was wae claimed c by the he m merchants who antagonized antagonised the government In both eases s there were dissenting opinions concurred d la in I Dy four of the nine Justices of ci the t court The decisions were wre rendered in the room ot Of the sea sen senate ate committee on Judiciary Ja where here the court is 18 sitting temporarily and owing to the limited space ce there then were compera comparatively comparatively few tew persons sad and those lawyers present The delivery of the opinions in chief with the reading of the Uie dissenting opinions consumed a little more than an hour and it was wu listened to with the closest eat attention Will in Legislation It is generally that the find ilni finding ing in the t e Philippine CASe ease will lead to toe early e rIy efforts to secure legislation for far the thel regulation l of our commercial relations l with those e 1 Islands la As Y J r n opinion sustains the e of oft the t Foraker act n k necessity will wilt arise arme with reference to Porte Rico Bico In the Philippine eat ea ca lr statIng the case at some M length ewer Justin Justh Puller Fuller quoted somewhat t extensively from the opinion of tab court in the ease rase of De Do DeLima Urns Lima vs va etl His ills prin principal principal cipal quotation truss from th t the CM pee t was the paragraph setting forth the Uta theory that thata a iii country remain re foreign With respect to the tariff laws Jaw until congress eNgre co li has ka acted by embracing It H le a customs The opinion then continued as an No reason is perceived for any aay differ different different different ent ruling as to the Philippines I By the third article of the treaty Spain aln S ceded to the United States Stat the archipelago known as aa the Philippine islands and the United State Weed agreed to pay to Spain th the sum flum of 2000 within thre titre months The treaty was wu r congress C appropriated appropriated the mon money r the tile was proclaimed Th The ThO s power the executive power pow tn Ute the legislative pow power er concurred in the completion of the transaction The Philippines thereby ceased In the language lar of ot the treaty to be Spanish Ceasing Cea ln to be pah they u cease to be foreign country They caM cesa under the complete fid id absolute and dominion of the United States and so 80 be became became became came territory of the Use U States over which ci civil chU il government be established established The result was the same al although although though h there was wu no so stipulation that the native inhabitants should be incorporated Into the body politic and to them tb m the right to choose their national nationality ity Their allegiance due to the United States and they tw me entitled te to its protection Differs From Prom Porto Rico Bico Case But Thit it is Ie said Aid the case ef the Philip Philippines II pines pinta Is I to be distinguished ad from that of Porto Porte Rico because Meau an n Fab 14 1811 after I I the of ol that the sen sea senate senate I ate resolved re that br y the th of the treaty treat of pec with Spain It Is to not intended to incorporate te th t inhabitants of the Philippine te Island lalands into ate citizenship of the United States State not nor t te is p p permanently those inland i We need not Dot force and effect of a a p thu sort if it If adopted ty SY pot JuU t like lUte that of April 29 3 In to t Cuba pre pee preliminary preliminary to the declaration of war but after title had been pas passed 4 by ratified caUSed cession It is enough h that there was a joint resolution re that it was adopted by bythe I Ithe the tbt senate sena te by a vote of 25 S 2 to 22 not two thirds of a quorum and du that t it is ab absolutely absolutely without lepel e on the question before u tie uThe u uThe The meaning of the treaty cannot be controlled by subsequent of or some of those tho e who may live voted to ratify it What t view the house nOOSe might I have taken aa II to the intention of or the senate nate in ratifying the treaty treats we art are n t informed nor Is 18 it material and if it ifan iti I ai an i imi from U t e Action referred II I I I to W Indulged 11 It ft would d seem to be that of et a quorum of the e tt did con elt tF i f U t raU rati aca Olt on the de AI MM tea It is farther i that a Uon tion exists in InO that t stOB O of et r Port tin was wi wt Wt u t W United bla a not DOt i se ae 4 Ute a t the 1111 tel w greater or 0 less lea extent We must decline to e that II th the government wishes thus t dI the title of the nt States Stat or r t ce in the position po n of waging a war aree oC conquest Sovereignty Over Philippines The sovereignty of Spam eVer e the ana anu possession H er claim of title haft had existed for a aws Wag series art of years yeara priM prior to the war with the United States The fact that there t w tete sa monT in r against her or that tribes may have nave defied her ter old did dIdt i et t af at affect feet leet the validity of h her r title She grant rant ranted ed ad the islands to the United an anthe nd the tM grantee in accepting acc them fault Nth th lie lag less leas than the whole If these in Ie insurrection against Spate continued in la Insurrection against the t United States Stat the legal egal title and possession of ot the Ute latter remained unaffected We do not Dot understand that it is Js claimed In on the pending hoe hos hostilities tm e the government is seeking eekt m mj suit sub subjugate j ate the people of a Co mitry stry but on the contrary that It is preserving order and suppressing foJ Insurrection ID in ter tee territory liter of the United States State It follows follow that the Jurisdiction of the United States Sta l lis is adequate and this cannot bo admitted for one purpose and nd denied for another a It is sought sou bt to detract from the tile weight of the ruling in De Do Urns Lima vs BW Bid Bidwell well because one of the five Justices ju con concurring in the judgment nt in that tut cue cae con concurred curved in the judgment in Down Downa vs ft BIdwell In De Do Lima vs Bid well Porto Porte Rico JUco was held not to be a foreign country aft afU after er cc cession and that a prior act exclusively U applicable to foreign countries be bei beI i me inapplicable I In Downs Down vs Bidwell the conclusion eI e on of a seniority majority of the court w an en enact I dot act of eon SI levying duties n foods I i from Irni Porto Polio Rico Ite into New Tork York not in m it with the provisions of o I i i tn th on t u i In i respect repe t to the tb po poI tin tion of d tulip it imp impo and excises en Tra TraI was I valid I I lour ur tir of ot thy m of the court i diM dt int five ton though houlIh t not noton 1 i on oIl the samp in this conclusion I Appurtenant Territory The Justice who delivered the opinion in De Lima case was one on of Die ure major majority jor ity it and was of opinion that although by bythe bythe I Ithe the concession Porto Porte Rico RI O ceased to be a foreign country and became a territory rY of the I United States and do ettic yet vet et that it was merely appurtenant toni terri territory I tor tory and not a paw part of the United States within revenue lau 3 of the UK This view placed the territory th not foreign out outside Mc of the tit restriction applicable to interstate inter tate cOmmerce did and treat treated d the power of congress When af affirmatively a exorcised over oer a territory tetory situated A as 1111 supposed as uncontrolled by bythe bythe bythe the provisions of ot the constitution c in I re respect re respect respect of national legislation The die dis distinction Unction was drawn between a special act in 10 respect of the particular country and anda a general and prior act att only applicable appU aWe to countries foreign to ours In 1 every sense lieU The latter was waa obliged to conform to the rule of uniformity which was wholly die dis disregarded cUre regarded re in h the former r The ruling TIlling in the cast case of De Dc Lime Lima re rt remained unaffected and controls that un under under der tier consideration And this UlU la is m so not notwithstanding notwithstanding withstanding four members of oft the te ma majority in tn the De Lima Lime ca case caH of the opinion that Porto Rico did not become me meby I by the cession subjected to the of governmental power in the levy i y of i dut duty unrestricted by constitutional Jim Hir limitations De rec reversed and case reminded remanded with directions to the information Justices Justice Ju Gray White Shires Shiran and end Mc Me X Kenna united in dissenting from the t courts court s opinion in the cam cambut C but they filed no written statement be beyond beyond yond vond mere note oot in which they said y that they dissented dis for the reasons r stated In tn Inthe Inthe the opinions opinion given in the eases rases of f fUma De Do DeLima DoUma Uma Lima vs va v Bidwell Dooley vt in tb United States and Downs Down vs VII Bidwell Ia term of the court Y |
