Under section 20 of the customs administrative act as amended December 15, 1902 (32 Stat., 753) merchandise in bonded warehouse on which duties are paid and permits for delivery issued to the storekeeper is thereupon withdrawn from consumption and subject to rate of duty in force at that time; this is not affected by the fact that the merchandise may remain in the warehouse after such permit is issued and if directly exported the owner will under section 2977 Revised Statutes, be entitled to drawbacks. Under section 20 of the customs administrative act merchandise in bonded ware house is subject to the rate of duty in force at the time of withdrawal for consumption and not to the rate in force at time of liquidation. Cuban sugar in bonded warehouse on which duty was paid and for which with drawal permits were issued and delivered to the storekeeper prior to December 27, 1903, but which remained in the warehouse after that date were subject to full duty, and not entitled to the 20 per cent reduction under the act of December 17, 1903, and the treaty with Cuba. Opinion by McKenna, J. No dissenting opinion. Judgment affirmed. One of the questions raised in this case is similar to the question raised in United States v. American Sugar Refining Company (202 U. S., 563); that is, whether or not the treaty of December 11, 1902, with Cubá went into effect December 27, 1903. The court held that it did, following the decision in that case. Certain sugars were imported into Philadelphia from Cuba September 29, 1903, by appellant and placed in bonded warehouses after duties imposed under tariff act of July 24, 1897. Withdrawal permits were issued prior to December 27, 1903; but part of the sugar was not withdrawn until after that date, and the question arose as to whether the sugar which remained in the warehouse after that date was entitled to the 20 per cent reduction under the act of December 17, 1903, and the treaty with Cuba, or whether subject to full duty. The Supreme Court held it was subject to full duty. This case was argued simultaneously with United States v. American Sugar Refining Company. Supreme Court of the United States. FRANCISCO DONES, APPELLANT, V. JOSE URRUTIA, WARDEN OP THE PENITENTIARY OF PORTO RICO, APPELLEE. Appeal from the supreme court of Porto Rico. (202 U. S., 614.) No. 685. October term, 1905. Submitted May 14, 1906. Decided May 28, 1906. Dones appealed from a final order of the supreme court of Porto Rico dismissing a writ of habeas corpus. The writ had been issued by order of the chief justice and was directed to Jose Urrutia, warden of the penitentiary at San Juan, who held Dones in custody under a death warrant issued by the district court of Humacao, P. R. A hearing, upon the return to the writ, was had before the supreme court of Porto Rico in banc. After hearing, the writ was dismissed, and Dones then appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States. No opinion was written in this case. The final order was affirmed with costs; authority of act of April 12, 1900 (31 Stat. 77, c. 191, 3449—07- 22 secs. 33, 34, 35, 15); Ortega v. Lara, 202 U. S. 339; Perez v. Fernandez, 202 U. S. 80; etc., etc. Decisions on rehearing in the cases of Lincoln v. United States and . Warner, Barnes & Co., Ltd., v. United States were also rendered at this term (October, 1905) of the court. Per Curiam. Final order affirmed. Supreme Court of the United States. Fred C. FISHER AND CHARLES C. Cohn, ON BEHALF OF FELIX BARCE LON, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, v. Col. David J. BAKER, JR., AND CAPT. JOHN DOE THOMPSON. Error to the supreme court of the Philippine Islands. (203 U. S., 174.) No. 214. October Term, 1906. Argued October 9, 10. Decided December 3, 1906. SYLLABUS. When an application on habeas corpus is denied because the writ had been sus pended, and thereafter, and before appeal taken is allowed, the suspension is revoked, the question of power of the authorities to suspend the writ becomes a moot one not calling for determination by this court. A proceeding in habeas corpus is a civil and not a criminal proceeding, and as final orders of circuit or district courts of the United States in such a proceeding can only be reviewed in this court by appeal, under $ 10 of the act of July 1, 1902, 32 Stat., 1369, a final order of the supreme court of the Philippine Islands in habeas corpus is governed by the same rules and can only be reviewed by appeal, and not by writ of error. Opinion by Fuller, C. J. No dissenting opinion. Writ of error dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The petition by Fisher, as next friend on behalf of one Barcelon, for a writ of habeas corpus was denied because the writ had been suspended by the Philippine Commission on January 31, 1905, in Cavite and Batangas on account of the insurrection of ladrones; a writ of error was allowed by this court on January 3, 1906, but prior to that and on October 19, 1905, the suspension of the writ had been revoked, the occasion for the suspension thereof having ceased. The only question argued in the Supreme Court of the United States, and in the court below, was the power of the Philippine Commission to suspend the writ; and the reinstatement of the writ having wiped out the basis of the decision sought to be reviewed, the only question argued became a moot one, not calling for determination by the Supreme Court of the United States. That court also held that a final order of the supreme court of the Philippine Islands in habeas corpus can only be reviewed by appeal, and not, as was sought in this case, by writ of error. Questions involving the power of Congress to delegate the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus to the Philippine Islands Commission, and if so, whether the power was properly exercised in this case, were involved and discussed in the brief and by the court below, but were not decided by the Supreme Court or discussed in the opinion. INDEX. TII U - - - - - - - - - - - - Page. -------- 80, 82, 117 Appropriation for pay of officers----- Merged in Military Secretary's Department--- retary's office -------- 224 218, 225 218, 225 217, 218, 224 31 218, 225 218, 225 8, 225 225 18, 225 225 Appropriation from treasury of_------ Disposition of------ of Alaska to be used for----- ----- 218, 225 ---- 1,2 plies furnished destitute Alaskans_--. --------- 3, 32 13, 42 ment of Justice)-- 44, 228 41 12 3, 32, 43 3, 32, 43 ----- 3, 32 Page. ----------------- 216 ------------- CIVICO - - - - - - - - - - ALASKA—Continued. Guertin, Frank, payment of Court of Claims judgment to.------- education of -- transporting pupils to Carlisle, Pa., and Salem, Oreg- 13, 42 3, 32 11, 35 13, 42 Sitka to Fort Liscum. Valdez to Seward. --------- 56, 73 others, payment to, for supplies furnished destitute Alaskans.. 1, 2 who die in.---- Difficult or emergency mail service in.------ Unusual business, third and fourth class offices, service in - 35 -------- 12, 13, 40, 41 ------- 13, 41 ---- 12, 40 12, 40 2, 3, 12, 40 Agents' salaries, etc-- 11, 39 61, 71 And ex officio secretary of, salary----- ---- 3, 32 ------ 3, 4, 9, 32, 43 ------- 220, 227 83 Mining and Trading Company) --- 219 3, 32 14 14, 15 14 15 11 ---------- 56, 73 ns, Army, pay assignments, when on duty in--------- - 44, 228 ------ 3 g - - - - - - - - - - - --- -- - -- -- -- -------- ALASKA-Continued. Page. Appropriation for 20 per cent increase on pay, service in------ Credited with double time of service in-------- Education of, appropriation for----- Provision for educating children of - 33, 34 ------ 23, 24 ------ -------- 3, 32, 43 Appropriation for salary--- To be superintendent of public instruction Appropriation for transporting pupils to Carlisle, Pa., and Salem, Oreg --- Snake River, exempt from channel charges at mouth of.-- Care and custody of, appropriation for. Provisions for commitment and care of.. Details, etc --------------- Salaries -------- Coldfoot on--- 216 217 25 Care of insane----- Roads, bridges, and trails.----- Station established at Nome. Thirteenth district extended to. Care of insane. 11,35 13, 42 tion for salaries. -------------------- 2, 41 - 54, 5.5, 66 in ad |