manner as it is limited in its legislation in regard to matters affecting the States, or territory wholly under State jurisdiction. In a case decided in 1894 the Supreme Court held that, "by the Constitution, as is now well settled, the United States, having rightfully acquired the Territories and being the only government which can impose laws upon them, have the entire dominion and sovereignty, national and municipal, Federal and State, over all the Territories so long as they remain in a territorial condition."2

The controversy as to whether the Constitution ex proprio vigore follows the flag, reached the Supreme Court in a concrete form in the Insular Cases which have already been referred to as pending before that Court and in which maný questions were discussed, some of which have been settled, in regard to the extent of the limitations upon Congressional action in legislating for the territories, especially those recently acquired from Spain under the Treaty of Paris.

61a. The Insular Cases; status of New Possessions. -These cases, so-called because they involved the status of the insular possessions acquired by the United States by treaty from Spain, and of the Hawaiian Islands annexed by resolution of Congress of July 7, 1898, were argued before the Supreme Court of the United States during the October term of 1900. Nine cases were argued, all but one of which were for refunds of customs duties exacted under the various tariff laws and orders either on goods brought from Porto Rico, the Philippines and Hawaiian Islands into other ports of the United States, or on goods brought from other ports of the United States into Porto Rico. The cases will be briefly considered in the order indicated in the notes hereto.1

longing to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State." U. S. Const. Art. IV, § 3, cl. 2.

2 Shively vs. Bowlby, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1894, 152 U. S. 1, p. 48, GRAY, J., citing numerous cases. See also cases cited and collated in INSULAR CASES APPENDIX at end of this volume.

§ 61a.

1 The titles to the Insular Cases, the order in which they will be considered, and the points involved in each case are as follows (see 182 U. S. Reports when published):

1 (61b). De Lima vs. Bidwell. For the return of duties exacted under the Dingley act on goods brought from Porto Rico to New York after the ratification of the treaty and prior to the Foraker act.

Opinions were delivered on May 27, 1901, in all of the cases except those involving the status of the Philippines and the validity of duties collected in Porto Rico under the Foraker Act. The cases were decided after most of this volume was completed and "in plate." They, therefore, can only be referred to briefly at this point where a space was left in case the decisions were rendered before the volume was actually in press. They are more fully discussed at other points in this volume, and also in an appendix.

1

616. The Insular Cases; Porto Rico and the Dingley Act. Two of the Insular Cases were brought to recover duties on goods brought from Porto Rico to New York after the ratification of the treaty of Paris, and prior to the 2 (61b). Goetze vs. United States. | ground that the vessel was subject Same. to pilotage laws because engaged in foreign trade.

3 (61c). Fourteen Diamond Rings, Emil Pepke, Claimant, vs. United States. To recover goods brought from Manila to Chicago, seized for unpaid duties under the Dingley act.

4 (61d). Crossman VS. United States. To recover duties exacted on goods brought from Hawaiian Islands after passage and approval of the resolution of annexation.

-5 (61e). Dooley, Smith & Co. vs. United States, No. 1. To recover duties paid in Porto Rico on goods brought from New York after the making of the treaty and prior to the Foraker act.

After these cases had been argued in the Supreme Court a resolution was passed by the House of Representatives on February 9, 1901, (the Senate concurred on February 15, 1901,) providing for printing twelve thousand copies of the records, briefs and arguments in all of the nine cases above referred to.

The volume consists of 1075 pages of records, briefs, arguments and exhibits, besides an analytical index of 39 pages; for title in full of this volume see INSULAR CASES APPENDIX at end of this volume.

2The cases which were not de

6 (61e). Armstrong VS. United cided on May 27, 1901, were decided States.

Same.

7 (61f). Downes vs. Bidwell. To recover duties exacted on goods brought from Porto Rico to New York under the Foraker act.

8 (61g). Dooley, Smith & Co. vs. United States, No. 2. To recover duties paid in Porto Rico on goods brought from New York to Porto Rico under the Foraker act.

9 (61h). Huus vs. N. Y. and Porto Rico S. S.Co. To recover pilotage from an American steamship on the

on December 2, 1901. The opinions of the court and the dissenting opinions are included in full in the INSULAR CASES APPENDIX (Supplement), pp. 563, et seq., of this volume. They will be officially reported in 183 or 184 U. S. Rep.

§ 61b.

1 De Lima vs. Bidwell, and Goetze vs. United States, 182 U. S. 1.

2 The treaty was signed in Paris December 10, 1898; was ratified by

Foraker act. The duties were imposed and collected under the act of July, 1897,4 known as the Dingley act; the consignees claimed that the merchandise was free because Porto Rico was part of the United States; the collector claimed that for tariff purposes Porto Rico remained a foreign country until Congress legislated in regard to it. The duties were paid under protest. Some of the consignees proceeded under the Customs Administrative Act 5 before the Board of General Appraisers, which upheld the Collector, and then appealed from the appraisers to the United States Circuit Court, which affirmed the appraisers; others brought common-law actions against the collector personally on the ground that the exaction was illegal and a mere trespass. In this case the United States Circuit Court sustained the

the President and Senate of the Uni- | Law approved June 10, 1890, 26 U.S. ted States February 6, 1899, and by the Queen Regent of Spain March 19, 1899 (30 U. S. Stat. at L. 1754); the ratifications were exchanged and the treaty proclaimed at Washington April 11, 1899.

8 The Foraker act was passed April 12, 1900; it took effect May 1, 1900, 31 U. S. Stat. at L. p. 77, ch. 191.

4 The present tariff law under which duties are collected on merchandise, commonly known as the Dingley act, was passed July 24, 1897, 30 Stat. at L. p. 151, ch. 11. The first section is as follows:

Be it enacted, &c.: That on and after the passage of this Act, unless otherwise specially provided for in this Act, there shall be levied, collected, and paid upon all articles imported from foreign countries, and mentioned in the schedules herein contained, the following rates of duty which are, by the schedules and paragraphs, respectively presented, namely: (then follow the schedules).

5 The Customs Administrative

Stat. at L. p. 131, provides for the method of recovering duties illegally exacted on imported merchandise by collectors. In the Insular Cases it was held that this law does not apply to duties illegally exacted on goods which are not imported in the sense that that word is used in the tariff laws; that is that only such goods as are brought from foreign ports are imported. See cases collated in INSULAR CASES APPENDIX on this point, especially Woodruff vs. Parham, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1868, 8 Wall. 123, MILLER, J.

6 Protests of Mosle Brothers and John H. Goetze & Co., before the U. S. General Appraisers at New York, February 14, 1900; Opinion by SOMERVILLE, General Appraiser, 22018, G. A. 4658-Synopsis of Treasury Decisions.

7 Goetze vs. United States, U. S. Cir. Ct. S. D. N. Y. 1900, 103 Fed. Rep. 72, TOWNSEND, J.

8 De Lima vs. George R. Bidwell, (collector of the Port of New York) originally brought in New York State Supreme Court and removed

Collector's demurrer. A suit was also brought in the United States Circuit Court to enjoin the Collector from continuing to exact duties under the Dingley Act after Porto Rico had become a part of the United States. The motion was denied and no appeal was taken from the decision of the circuit judge.10 Appeals were taken to the Supreme Court in many of these cases. That court reversed the Circuit Court and the Board of Appraisers, and decided that territory could not be domestic and foreign at the same time; that after the exchange of ratification of the treaty of Paris, Porto Rico ceased to be foreign, and therefore the Dingley Act did not apply to merchandise brought from Porto Rico to New York, and that the duties collected under protest must be

by defendant to United States Circuit Court for Southern District of New York, 1900.

"March 19, 1900.-Motion denied on authority of Crunkshank vs. Bidwell, 176 U. S. 73. Complainant

• Pro forma, see record of Insular has an adequate, summary, and exCases.

peditious remedy at law under the 10 Lascelles vs. Bidwell, U. S. Cir. Customs Administrative Act." No Ct. S. D. N. Y. 1900, 102 Fed. Rep. appeal was taken in this case. Un1004, LACOMBE, J. In this case the der the decision in De Lima vs. Bidauthor of this volume appeared as well, the ruling of the Circuit Judge attorney and counsel for the plain- was error as the Supreme Court tiffs who were dealers in Porto Rico decided that the Customs Adminissugar. The injunction was asked trative Act does not apply to duties on the ground that Porto Rico was illegally exacted on goods which no longer foreign, but had become are not imported, i. e., not brought a part of the territory of the United from a foreign country. The chief States, if not upon the signing of ground urged by the plaintiffs in the treaty, not later than the ex- Lascelles vs. Bidwell was that the change of ratifications. On the ar- continued exaction of duties by the gument the District Attorney asked collector on goods from Porto Rico the Court to decide preliminarily had broken up the business of bringwhether an injunction would be ing sugar therefrom, and that for granted under any circumstances, such continued loss of business in view of the provisions of the Cus- there was no remedy at law, as no toms Administrative Law. The opportunity was given of paying the Court consented to consider that duties on goods coming from Porto point before requiring the District Rico during the period of illegal Attorney to argue the question of exaction and it was impossible to Porto Rico's status. This case was measure the pecuniary loss sustherefore decided exactly as though tained by the loss of business. the goods had been brought from This point does not appear to have Boston or Savannah. The entire been considered. decision as reported is as follows: j

refunded." Mr. Justice Brown delivered the opinion of the court, Chief Justice Fuller and Justices Harlan, Brewer and Peckham concurred with him; 12 Mr. Justice McKenna wrote a dissenting opinion in which Justices Shiras and White concurred; Mr. Justice Gray also delivered a brief dissenting opinion.

§ 61c. The status of the Philippines; The Diamond Ring Case. Although the Supreme Court decided that Porto Rico, on the exchange of ratifications of the treaty of Paris, became domestic territory, and duties on merchandise could not be collected under the Dingley Tariff act as though it were a foreign country, the Court withheld the decision in a similar case involving the dutiability of goods brought from the Philippine Islands for over six months.1 Fourteen diamond rings brought from Manila were seized in Chicago for nonpayment of duties. The owner filed a claim denying that the rings were dutiable, as they were brought from one part of the United States to another. The United States demurred to the claim and the demurrer was sustained. A writ of error was granted by the Supreme Court. In the De Lima case, which involved the status of Porto Rico, reference was made to the fact that not only had that island been ceded to the United States, but that the United States was in possession of the Island. In the Diamond Ring case the effect of the McEnery Resolution, passed by the Senate the day after the treaty of peace was ratified, was considered at length and the Court held that it did not affect the construction of the treaty.

§ 61d. The Status of the Hawaiian Islands.-No sepa

11 De Lima vs. Bidwell, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1901, 182 U. S. 1, BROWN, J.

Goetze vs. United States, U. S. Sup. Ct. 1901, 182 U. S. 221, BROWN, J. (No opinion; reference simply being made to the opinion just delivered in De Lima vs. Bidwell.)

12 For abstracts of the opinions in this case see APPENDIX at end of this volume. The cases have been reported in some of the Lawyers' Coöperative Reports, and will appear in 182 U. S. Reports.

§ 61c.

1 Fourteen Diamond Rings, Pepke, Claimant, vs. United States, U. S. Ct. 1901, (decided December 2, 1901).

2 U. S. District Court, Northern Dist. of Ill., July, 1900, KOHLSAAT, J. (pro forma).

3 See INSULAR CASES APPENDIX at end of this volume; consult index, thereto, for page references.

4 See McEnery Resolution on p. 565, post.