Page images
PDF
EPUB

delivered a concurring opinion. The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Harlan, Mr. Justice Brewer, and Mr. Justice Peckham dissented. Thus it is seen that there is no opinion in which a majority of the court concurred. Under these circumstances I (the reporter) have, after consultation with Mr. Justice Brown, who announced the judgment, made headnotes of each of the sustaining opinions and placed before each the names of the justices or justice who concurred in it.

Supreme Court of the United States.

CARLOS ARMSTRONG, A BRITISH SUBJECT, A MERCHANT CARRYING ON BUSINESS BETWEEN PORTO RICO AND THE UNITED STATES, APPELLANT, v. THE UNITED STATES.

Appeal from the Court of Claims.

(182 U. S. 243.)

No. 509. October term, 1900.

Argued January 8, 9, 10, and 11, 1901. Decided
May 27, 1901.

SYLLABUS..

Dooley v. United States, 182 U. S., 222, followed.

Opinion by Brown, J. No dissenting opinion.

The judgment of the Court of Claims is therefore reversed and the case remanded to that court for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

This is one of the so-called “insular tariff cases," also. Goods were imported from this country (United States) into Porto Rico while Porto Rico was under military occupation. The goods were imported partly before and partly after the ratification of the treaty of peace. This case is controlled by the case of Dooley v. U. S. The court held that duties exacted prior to the ratification of the treaty (April 11, 1899) were properly exacted. So far as they were imposed after that date and prior to December 5, 1899, the plaintiff was entitled to recover them back.

Supreme Court of the United States.

FOURTEEN DIAMOND RINGS, EMIL PEPKE, CLAIMANT, , THE UNITED STATES.

Error in the district court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois.

(183 U. S. 176.)

No. 153. October Term, 1901. Argued December 17, 18, 19, and 20, 1900. Decided December 2, 1901.

SYLLABUS.

1. The ruling in De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U. S., 1, reaffirmed and applied. 2. No distinction, so far as the question determined in that case is concerned, can be made between the Philippines and the island of Porto Rico after the

ratification of the treaty of peace between the United States and Spain, April 11, 1899, and certainly not

(a) Because of the passage by the Senate alone, by a majority, but not by twothirds of a quorum, of a joint resolution in respect to the intention of the Senate in the ratification;

(b) Or, because of the armed resistance of the native inhabitants, or of uncivilized tribes, in the Philippines, to the dominion of the United States;

(c) Or, because one of the justices who concurred in the judgment of De Lima v. Bidwell, also concurred in the judgment in Downes v. Bidwell. U. S. 244).

(182

Opinion by Fuller, C. J. Concurring, Brown, Harlan, Peckham, Brewer, JJ. Dissenting, Gray, Shiras, White, McKenna, JJ. Decree reversed and cause remanded with directions to quash the information.

In this case, one of the "insular tariff cases," the question was raised as to the validity or right to collect duties on goods imported into the United States from the Philippine Islands after the ratification of the treaty of peace between the United States and Spain. The decision in the case of De Lima v. Bidwell, (182 U. S., 1) is controlling.

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 & COMPANY, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. THE UNITED STATES. Error to the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of New York.

(183 U. S., 151.)

No. 207. October Term, 1901. Argued January 8, 9, 10, and 11, 1901. Decided December 2, 1901.

SYLLABUS.

The act of Congress, taking effect May 1, 1900, and known as the Foraker Act, which requires all merchandise going into Porto Rico from the United States to pay a duty of 15 per cent of the amount of duties paid upon merchandise imported from foreign countries, is constitutional.

The Constitution, in declaring that no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State, is limited to articles exported to a foreign country, and has no application to Porto Rico, which, in the case of De Lima v. Bidwell (182 U. S., 1), was held not to be a foreign country within the meaning of the general tariff law then in force.

The fact that the duties so collected were not covered into the general fund of the Treasury, but held as a separate fund to be used for the government and benefit of Porto Rico, and were made subject to repeal by the legislative assembly of that island, shows that the tax was not intended as a duty upon exports, and that Congress was undertaking to legislate for the island temporarily, and only until a local government was put in operation.

Opinion by Brown, J. Concurring, White, McKenna, Shiras, Gray, JJ. Dissenting, Fuller, Harlan, Brewer, Peckham, JJ.

Affirmed.

In this case, an insular tariff case, the constitutionality of the Foraker Act, so far as it fixes duty to be paid on goods imported into Porto Rico from New York, was raised. The Supreme Court of the United States held the act constitutional.

Supreme Court of the United States.

TERRITORY OF HAWAII, APPELLANT, v. OSAKI MANKICHI, APPELLEE.

Appeal from the district court of the United States for the Territory of Hawaii.

(190 U. S., 197.)

No. 219. October Term 1902.

Argued March 4 and 5, 1903. Decided June 1, 1903.

SYLLABUS.

In interpreting a statute the intention of the law-making power will prevail even against the letter of the statute; a thing may be within the letter of the statute and not within its meaning, and within its meaning, though not within its letter. Smythe v. Fisk (23 Wallace, 374). In inserting in the Resolution of July 7, 1898, annexing Hawaii, a provision that municipal legislation not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States should remain in force until Congress otherwise determined, Congress did not intend to impose upon the islands every clause of the Constitution, and to nullify convictions and verdicts which might, before the legislature could act, be rendered in accordance with existing legislation of the islands but not in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution, nor was such the intention of Hawaii in surrendering its autonomy.

The conviction of one who, between August 12, 1898, and June 14, 1900, was tried on information and convicted by a jury not unanimous, in accordance with legislation of the Republic of Hawaii existing at the time of the annexation, is legal notwithstanding it is not in compliance with the provisions of the Fifth and Sixth amendments of the Constitution.

Opinion by Brown, J. Concurring, White, McKenna, Holmes, Day, JJ. Dissenting, Fuller, Harlan, Brewer, Peckham, JJ.

The decree of the District Court for the Territory of Hawaii must be reversed and the case remanded to that court with instructions to dismiss the petition.

The application of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments of the Constitution to Hawaii after annexation but before the passage of the act providing a form of Government for the Territory was involved in this case.

Supreme Court of the United States.

CZARNIKOW, MACDOUGALL & COMPANY (LTD.), PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. GEORGE R. BIDWELL, COLLECTOR OF THE PORT OF NEW YORK,

DEFENDANT IN ERROR.

In error to the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of New York.

(191 U. S., 559.)

No. 14. October Term, 1903. Submitted December 4, 1903. Decided December 14, 1903.

The question here involved was the constitutionality of the Foraker Act-duty on goods brought into the United States from Porto Rico.

No opinion was written in this case; the judgment was affirmed with costs, on the authority of Downes v. Bidwell (182 U. S., 244, 287.)

Per curiam. Concurring, Brown, White, McKenna, Holmes, Day, JJ. Dissenting, Fuller, Harlan, Brewer, Peckham, JJ. Judgment affirmed.

Supreme Court of the United States.

WARNER, BARNES & COMPANY (LTD.), PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR v. Nevada N. STRANAHAN, COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS OF THE PORT OF NEW York, DEFENDANT IN ERROR.

In error to the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of New York.

(191 U. S., 560.)

No. 331.. October Term, 1903. Argued December 4, 1903. Decided December 14, 1903.

The question here involved was the constitutionality of the exaction of duties on importations into the United States from the Philippine Islands after the passage of the Philippine Act.

No opinion was written in this case. The judgment was affirmed with costs on the authority of Downes v. Bidwell (182 U. S. 244, 287). Per curiam. Judgment affirmed.

Concurring, Brown, White, McKenna, Holmes, Day, JJ. Dissenting, Fuller, Harlan, Brewer, Peckham, JJ.

Supreme Court of the United States.

ISABELLA GONZALES, APPELLANT, v. WM. WILLIAMS, U. S. COMMISSIONER OF IMMIGRATION AT THE PORT OF NEW YORK, APPELLEE. Appeal from the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of New York.

No. 225.

(192 U. S., 1.)

October Term, 1903. Argued December 4, 7, 1903. Decided January 4, 1904.

SYLLABUS.

The immigration act of March 3, 1891, 26 Stat. 1084, relates to foreigners as respects this country-to persons owing allegiance to a foreign government; citizens of Porto Rico are not "aliens," and upon arrival by water at the ports of our mainland are not "alien immigrants " within the intent and meaning of the act.

Opinion by Fuller, C. J. No dissenting opinion.

Final order reversed and cause remanded with a direction to discharge Gonzales.

The question here involved was whether a citizen of Porto Rico is to be regarded as an alien within the meaning of the immigration laws, which deny admission to the United States to certain classes of aliens.

Supreme Court of the United States.

J. RIBAS Y HIJO, A SPANISH CORPORATION DOING BUSINESS IN THE ISLAND OF PORTO RICO, APPELLANTS, v. THE UNITED STATES.

Appeal from the district court of the United States for the district of Porto Rico.

(194 U. S., 315.)

No. 151. October Term, 1903. Submitted April 28, 1904. Decided May 16, 1904.

SYLLABUS.

Under section 35 of the act of April 12, 1900, this court can review on writ of error a final judgment of the district court of the United States for Porto Rico, where the amount in dispute exceeds $5,000, and a final judgment in a like case in the supreme court of one of the Territories of the United States could be reviewed by this court.

An action which could be brought under the Tucker Act against the United States in either a district or a circuit court of the United States is within the cognizance of the district court of the United States of Porto Rico. Quaere, and not decided, whether a foreign corporation can maintain any action under the Tucker Act in any court in view of the provisions of the act that the petition must be filed in the district where the plaintiff resides. The seizure and detention by the naval and military forces of the United States during the war with Spain, of a vessel owned by Spanish subjects, was a seizure of enemy's property and an act of war within the limits of military operations, although the owners were not directly connected with military operations, and a claim for damages for such seizure and detention is not founded on the Constitution of the United States, or on any act of Congress, or regulation of an executive department, or on any contract express or implied, and an action based thereon is not sanctioned by the Tucker Act and can not be maintained thereunder.

The fact that the vessel was retained pending negotiations for a treaty of peace and during a cessation of hostilities does not connect the original seizure with an implied contract to compensate the owners for the detention of the vessel.

If the owners had any claim against the United States it was relinquished by the stipulation in the treaty of peace relinquishing claims, such stipulation covering all claims arising prior to the exchange of ratifications of the treaty.

In case of a conflict between a statute and treaty the one last in date prevails.

Opinion by Harlan, J. No dissenting opinion.

So ordered.

This case arose in Porto Rico. A Spanish corporation sued to recover a certain sum for the use of a merchant vessel which was taken by the United States at Ponce, Porto Rico, when that city was captured by the United States forces in 1898. The court below, on final hearing, dismissed the action upon the ground that the vessel was properly seized as enemy's property. The Supreme Court of the United States affirmed the action of the lower court.

« PreviousContinue »