Page images
PDF
EPUB

DECISIONS OF THE SUPREME COURT.

Supreme Court of the United States.

IN RE VIDAL. JOSÉ JUAN VIDAL ET AL. Application for leave to file a petition for a writ of certiorari.

(179 U. S. 126.) Original. No number. Submitted April 23, 1900. Decided November 12, 1900.

SYLLABUS.

Section 716, Rev. Stat., does not empower this Court to review the proceedings

of military tribunals by certiorari. The act of April 12, 1900 (c. 191), having discontinued the tribunal established

under that act, and created a successor, authorized to take possession of its records and to take jurisdiction of all cases and proceedings pending

therein, this Court has no jurisdiction to review its proceedings. Such tribunals are not courts with jurisdiction in law or equity, within the

meaning of those terms as used in article 3 of the Constitution. Opinion by Fuller, C. J. No dissenting opinion. Leave denied.

This was an application for leave to file a petition for writ of certiorari to test the validity of the judgment of the United States provisional court of Porto Rico in a quo warranto proceeding to oust petitioner and others from municipal offices in the town of Guayama.

Supreme Court of the United States.

Charles F. W. Neely, Appellant, . Wm. Henkel, United States Mar

shal, etc., Appellee (No. 1). Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the southern

district of New York.

(180 U. S. 109.)

No. 387. October term, 1900. Argued December 10 and 11, 1900. Decided

January 14, 1901.

SYLLABUS.

There is no merit in the contention that Article 401 of the Penal Code of Cuba,

which provides that the public employe, who, by reason of his office, has in his charge public funds or property, and takes or consents that others should take any part therefrom, shall be punished, applies only to persons in the public employ of Spain. Spain having withdrawn from the island, its successor has become “the public,” to which the code, remaining unrepealed, now refers.

Within the meaning of the act of June 6, 1900 (c. 793, 31 Stat., 656), pro

viding for the surrender of persons committing defined crimes within a foreign country occupied by or under the control of the United States, and fleeing to the United States, or any Territory thereof, or the District of Columbia, Cuba is foreign territory which can not be regarded in any constitutional, legal or international sense as a part of the territory of the United States; and this is not affected by the fact that it is under a military governor, appointed by and representing the President in the work of assisting the inhabitants of the island in establishing a government of

their own. Is between the United States and Cuba that island is territory held in trust

for its inhabitants, to whom it rightfully belongs, and to whose exclusive control it will be surrendered when a stable government shall have been

established by their voluntary action. The act of June 6, 1900, is not unconstitutional in that it does not secure to the

ii'cused when surrendered to a foreign country for trial all the rights, privileges and immunities that are guaranteed by the Constitution to persons charged with the commission in this country of crime against the

United States. The provisions of the Constitution relating to writs of habeas corpus, bills of

attainder, ex post facto laws, trial by jury for crimes, and generally to the fundamental guarantees of life, liberty and property embodied in that instrument have no relation to crimes committed without the jurisdiction

of the United States, against the laws of a foreign country. When an American citizen commits a crime in a foreign country, he can not

complain if required to submit to such modes of trial and to such punishment as the laws of that country may prescribe for its own people, unless a different mode be provided for by treaty stipulations between that country.

and the United States. The contention that the l'nited States recognized the existence of an established

government, known as the Republic of Cuba, but is now using its military

or executive power to overthrow it, is without merit. The act of June 6, 1900, is not in violation of the Constitution of the United

States, and this case comes within its provisions; and, the court below . having found that there was probable cause to believe the appellant guilty

of the offenses charged, the order for his extradition was proper, and no

ground existed for his discharge on habeas corpus. Opinion by Harlan, J. No dissenting opinion. Judgment of the Circuit Court affirmed.

Briefly stated, this was a habeas corpus proceeding to test the constitutionality of an act—act of June 6, 1900—providing for extradition of persons charged with offenses committed in territory under the control of the United States.

Supreme Court of the United States.

Charles F. W. Neely, Appellant, . Wm. Henkel, United States Mar

shal, etc., Appellee (No. 2). dppeal from the circuit court of the United States for the southern

district of New York.

(180 U. S. 126.)

No. 406. October term, 1900. Argued December 10 and 11, 1900. Decided

January 11, 1901.

SYLLABUS. The record in this case, it is admitted, shows the same state of facts as in the

case just decided (No. 387, 180. U. S. 109). This was a second application for a writ of habeas corpus, upon substantially the same grounds as were

urged in the other case. The additional allegations in this application for

the writ did not materially change the situation. For the reasons stated in the opinion just delivered, the judgment of the circuit

court is affirmed. I Opinion by Harlan, J. No dissenting opinion. Affirmed.

This case was argued with, and the decision follows that in, No. 387, (180 U. S., 109), by the same counsel.

The Supreme Court of the United States.

Elias S. A. DE LIMA, ELIAS A. DE LIMA, AND EDWARD DE LIMA,

COMPOSING THE FIRM OF D. A. DE LIMA & Co., PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, 1. GEORGE R. BIDWELL, COLLECTOR OF THE PORT OF NEW YORK, DEFENDANT IN ERROR.

Error to the circuit court of the United States for the southern dis

trict of New York.

(182 U. S. 1.)

No. 456. Argued January 8, 9, 10, 11, 1901. Decided May 27, 1901.

SYLLABUS.

By the customs administrative act of 1890 an appeal is given from the decision

of the collector “as to the rate and amount of the duties chargeable upon imported merchandise” to the Board of General Appraisers, who are authorized to decide “as to the construction of the law and the facts respecting the classification of such merchandise; and the rate of duties imposed thereon under such classification ;” but where the merchandise is alleged not to have been imported at all, but to have been brought from one domestic port to another, the Board of General Appraisers has no jurisdiction of the case, and an action for money had and received will lie against the collector to recover back duties assessed by him upon such

property and paid under protest. With the ratification of the treaty of peace between the United States and

Spain, April 11, 1899, the island of Porto Rico ceased to be a “ foreign

country” within the meaning of the tariff laws. Whatever effect be given to the act of March 24, 1900, applying for the benefit of

Porto Rico the duties received on importations from that island after the evacuation by the Spanish forces, it has no aplication to an action brought before the act was passed. "

Opinion by Brown, J. Concurring, Fuller, Harlan, Brewer, Peckham, JJ. Dissenting, McKenna, Shiras, White, and Gray' (in a separate opinion), JJ.

The judgment of the circuit court for the southern district of New York is therefore reversed and the case remanded to that court for further proceedings in consonance with this opinion.

This is one of the “ Insular tariff cases." The question was raised “ whether territory acquired by the United States by cession from a foreign power remains a “ foreign country' within the meaning of the tariff laws." The circuit court, southern district of New York, held it was “ foreign country,” which decision, however, was reversed by the Supreme Court of the United States.

This case arose through the importation of sugar from Porto Rico into the United States (at New York) in the summer of 1899, after the ratification of the treaty of peace with Spain and before the taking effect of the Foraker Act for the government of Porto Rico.

OING BUSINESS UNDER THE FIRM NAME

Supreme Court of the United States. No. 340. John H. GOETZE, DOING BUSINESS U

OF JOHN H. GOETZE & COMPANY, APPELLANT, V. THE UNITED

STATES. No. 515. GEORGE W. CROSSMAN AND HERMANN SIELCKEN, COMPOSING

THE FIRM OF W. H. CROSSMAN & BRO., APPELLANT, v. THE UNITED STATES.

Appeal from the Circuit court of the United States for the southern

district of New York.

[ocr errors]

October term, 1900. No. 310 was argued December 17, 18, 19, and 20, 1900;

No. 515 was argued January 14 and 15, 1901. The two were decided together May 27, 1901.

SYLLABU'S.

De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U. S., 1 (case No. 436), followed by reversing the action

of the general appraisers. Opinion by Brown, J. No dissenting opinion.

With the ratification of the treaty of peace between the United States and Spain, April 11, 1899, the island of Porto Rico ceased to be a “ foreign country” within the meaning of the tariff laws.

The judgments of the circuit court are therefore reversed and the casés remanded to that court with instructions to reverse the action of the board of general appraisers.

These were petitions for a review of two decisions of the board of general appraisers, holding subject to duty certain merchandise, imported, in one case from Porto Rico, and in the other, from Honolulu, in the Hawaiian Islands (p. 221).

No. 310. Goetz v. U. S. The importation in this case consisted of tobacco which was imported from Porto Rico into the United States (at New York) on June 6, 1899, after the ratification of the treaty of peace with Spain and before the taking effect of the Foraker Act for the government of Porto Rico.

No. 515. Crossman . U. S. This importation consisted of liquors, imported from Hawaii into the United States in April, 1900, after the passage of the resolution of annexation (July 7, 1898) and before the taking effect of the act of April 30, 1900, which provided a government for that Territory.

There was no decision of these cases on the merits, the Supreme Court holding that the Board of General Appraisers had no jurisdiction of the cases. Both of the cases are among those known as the “ Insular Tariff Cases."

Supreme Court of the United States. HENRY W. DOOLEY ET AL., ENGAGED IN TRADE AND COMMERCE BETWEEN

PORTO RICO AND NEW YORK UNDER THE FIRM NAME OF DOOLEY,

SMITH & Co., PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. THE UNITED STATES. Error to the circuit court of the United States for the southern dis

trict of New York.

(182 U. S., 222.) No. 501. October Term, 1900. Argued January 8, 9, 10, 11, 1901.

Decided May 27, 1901.

SYLLABUS. The Court of Claims and the circuit courts, acting as such, have jurisdiction

of actions for the recovery of duties illegally exacted upon merchandise

alleged not to have been imported from a foreign country. Duties upon imports from the United States to Porto Rico, collected by the

military commander and by the President as Commander in Chief, from the time possession was taken of the island until the ratification of the treaty

of peace, were legally exacted under the war power.. As the right to exact duties upon importations from Porto Rico to New York

ceased with the ratification of the treaty of peace, the correlative right to exact duties upon imports from New York to Porto Rico also ceased at the same time. Opinion by Brown, J. Concurring, Fuller, Harlan, Brewer, Peckham, JJ. Dissenting, White, Gray, Shiras, McKenna, JJ.

The judgment of the circuit court is therefore reversed and the case remanded to that court for further proceedings in consonance with this opinion.

This, too, is one of the cases commonly known as the insular tariff cases. (The question here raised was the validity under the Constitution of duties collected on goods imported into Porto Rico from the United States during the military occupation by the United States, but after the cession of Porto Rico by the ratification of the treaty of peace and before the taking effect of the Foraker act. It was held that these duties were improperly exacted, the decision in the De Lima case being followed.)

Supreme Court of the United States. SAMUEL B. DOWNES, DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE FIRM NAME OF S. B.

DowNES & COMANY, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR,

GEORGE R. BIDWELL, COLLECTOR OF THE PORT OF NEW YORK, DEFENDANT

IN ERROR. Error to the circuit court of the United States for the southern dis

trict of New York.

(182 U. S., 244.) No. 507. October Term, 1900. Argued January 8, 9, 10, 11, 1901. Decided

May 27, 1901.

SYLLABUS. By Mr. Justice Brown, in announcing the conclusion and judginent of the court.

3449-07- 21

« PreviousContinue »