our tariff acts and no general description under which they could be included (p. 115); also for the reason that our Government has always treated vessels as sui generis and subject to an entirely different set of laws from those applied to imported articles (p. 118). These reasons do not apply to the tariff regulations of Porto Rico. (See pp. 69-70, Tariff Regulations for Porto Rico.) In United States. A Chain Cable (2 Sumn., 362) it was held that a chain cable was not taxable which was purchased at Liverpool by the master of the ship Marathon to supply the place of a hempen cable which had become unseaworthy if the cable were purchased bona fide with the intention of using it for that ship and not to sell as merchandise. The cable in question was so used on the ship. Judge Story said that the words "goods, wares, and merchandise,” as used in the tariff act, included only such as were designed for sale, or to be applied to some use or object distinct from their bona fide appropriation to the use of the ship in which they are imported. In the brig Concord (9 Cranch., 387), the court held: Where goods are brought by superior force or by inevitable necessity into the United States they are not deemed to be so imported, in the sense of the law, as necessarily to attach the right to duties. If, however, such goods are afterwards sold or consumed in the country, or incorporated into the general mass of its property, they become retroactively liable for the payment of duties. In the Gertrude (3 Story, 68) it was held that the tackle, apparel, and furniture of a foreign vessel, wrecked upon our coast, and landed and sold separately from the hull, were not goods, wares, and merchandise imported into the United States within the meaning of the revenue laws. This seems to have been adopted as the rule for Porto Rico. (See note p. 79, Tariff Regulations for Porto Rico.) It is therefore recommended that the collector at San Juan, P. R., be advised as follows: The tackie, apparel, furniture, etc., of a vessel wrecked at sea are exempt from duty. (See note, p. 70, Tariff Regulations.) Duty on the wreck of a vessel should not be collected if the wreck is to be restored and continued as a vessel. If the wreck is broken up and treated as material for consumption in Porto Rico, collect duty assessed upon the price for which the property sold at auction if regular appraisement is impracticable. If appraisement is practicable, fix duty by following formula: Dutiable value is to price realized as 100 is to 100 plus the rate of duty. The Secretary of War approved the views set forth in the foregoing report, and the collector of customs at San Juan, Porto Rico, was instructed as follows: SEPTEMBER 12, 1899. The tackle, apparel, furniture, etc., of a vessel wrecked at sea are exempt from duty. (See note, p. 70, Tariff Regulations for Porto Rico.) Duty on wreck of vessel should not be collected if the wreck is to be restored and continued as a vessel. If the wreck is broken up and treated as material for consumption in Porto Rico, collect duty assessed upon the price for which the property sold at auction, if the regular appraisement is impracticable. If the appraisement is practicable, fix duty by the following formula: Dutiable value is to price realized as 100 is to 100 plus the rate of duty. ELIAU ROOT, Secretary of War. DAVIS, Collector, San Juan, P. R. THE RIGHT TO DISPOSE OF THE MONEYS FOUND IN THE SPANISH TREASURIES IN MANILA AND SEIZED BY THE MILITARY FORCES OF THE UNITED STATES WHEN THAT CITY WAS CAPTURED. [Submitted October 14, 1901. Case No. 3453, Division of Insular Affairs, War Department.] SYNOPSĮS. 1. Property lawfully captured in enemys' country by the military forces of the United States instantly becomes the public property of the United States, and the right to dispose thereof is vested in Congress. 2. Neither the military authorities of the United States nor the officials in charge of the government of civil affairs in the Philippines are authorized to exercise said right of disposal. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge and comply with your request for a report on the right to dispose of the moneys found in the Spanish treasuries in Manila and seized by the military forces of the United States when that city was captured. The question is presented to the War Department as follows: When the city of Manila was occupied by the military forces of the United States, there were found in the several public treasuries situate therein funds aggregating 1,273,874.87 Mexican dollars. Included in said funds were a larger number of copper coins of Spanish mintage. These funds were seized by the Commander of the military forces of the United States as lawful prize of war, and said moneys were retained by the United States upon the conclusion of a peace. This money was placed in the custody of the "insular treasurer," an official of the military government of the Philippines. For the purpose of supplying the demands of trade in the islands for coins of small value, Major-General Otis authorized the insular treasurer to exchange $600 of this coin per week for local currency at par. The Philippine Commission formulated a bill for an act repealing said order of Major-General Otis, and authorizing the sale of said Spanish copper coins to the highest bidder. This bill was referred to Major-General MacArthur, military governor, by the Commission, and he expressed his disapproval of the proposed legislation as follows: The sale of the copper coinage as proposed would doubtless prove advantageous to all concerned, but it is thought the prior action of Congress is necessary to convert such coinage or the proceeds of the sale thereof into an asset of the insular treasury. (Ind. of June 12, 1901.) Upon consideration of the objection made by Major-General MacArthur, the Commission voted to refer the question involved to the Secretary of War. (See resolution of July 22, 1901.) In the letter transmitting the papers, William H. Taft, civil governor, says: Personally I have very grave doubt upon the point. If the funds are captured funds, as they doubtless were, they would seem to be the property of the United States Government and available for disposition by no other authority than that of Congress. As the question is consequently recurring, however, it is thought best to obtain an authoritative expression of opinion. (Taft letter, July 31, 1901.) Upon examination of the subject I concur in the opinion expressed by Major-General MacArthur, military governor, in his indorsement of June 12, 1901, for the following reasons: Article VI, section 69, of the Regulations for the Army of the United States provides that- All property, public or private, lawfully taken from the enemy or from the inhabitants of an enemy's country, by the forces of the United States, instantly becomes the public property of the United States, and must be accounted for as such. Property captured or taken by way of requisition belongs to the United States, and can not, under any circumstances, be appropriated to individual benefit. Article I, section 8, of the Constitution, confers upon Congress the authority To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water. Article IV, section 3, of the Constitution provides that The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States. Congress has sedulously guarded the authority so conferred. From many instances showing the vigilance with which Congress protects this authority I select one which resulted from the military occupation of Mexico in 1847. As the cities of Mexico were severally occupied by the forces of the United States, the officers in command imposed and collected duties on goods and merchandise brought into the territory subject to their jurisdiction. The money so secured was collected as military contributions or requisitions for the use and benefit of the United States. In this respect the fund so created resembled captured property and differed from the funds derived from the collection of customs in the Philippines, for those funds are intended for the use and benefit of the archipelago. The money collected in Mexico was not converted into the Treasury of the United States. On the contrary, President Polk used it, as his discretion determined, "toward defraying the expenses of the war." When the accounts of the disbursing officers (who had disbursed the funds pursuant to directions from the President) reached the Treasury Department they were disapproved as being disbursements of money belonging to the United States without authority of law. Congress was called upon to provide the legislation necessary to secure approval of said disbursements. The authority of President Polk to dispose of said funds was challenged in Congress. (Cong. Globe, vol. 20, p. 57.) The matter was referred to a special committee, which submitted a majority report denying that the President had the authority exercised, and a minority report sustaining the President. (See Reports of Committees, 2d sess., 30th Cong., Report No. 119; Mess. of Pres. Polk to Cong., Jan. 2, 1849, Richardson's Comp., vol. 4, p. 672; discussion of message, 20 Cong. Globe, pp. 148, 639.) The matter was finally adjusted by the passage of an act entitled "An act to provide for the settlement of the accounts of public officers and others who may have received moneys arising from military contributions, or otherwise, in Mexico." (9 Stats., 412.) With reference to the property of the United States in Porto Rico, acquired during the war with Spain, the Attorney-General advised the Secretary of War as follows: * * * The power to dispose permanently of the public lands and public property in Porto Rico rests in Congress, and, in the absence of a statute conferring such power, can not be exercised by the executive department of the Government. (22 A. G. Op., 545.) In his instructions to the Philippine Commission the President said: That part of the power of government in the Philippine Islands which is of a legislative nature is to be transferred from the military governor of the islands to this Commission, to be thereafter exercised by them in the place and stead of the military governor. Exercise of this legislative authority will include the making of rules and orders, having the effect of law, for the raising of revenue by taxes, customs, duties, and imposts; the appropriation and expenditure of public funds of the islands; the establishment of an educational system throughout the islands; the establishment of a system to secure an efficient civil service; the organization and establishment of courts; the organization and establishment of municipal and departmental governments, and all other matters of a civil nature for which the military governor is now competent to provide by rules or orders of a legislative character. (See p. 4 of instructions of April 7, 1900.) It appears to the writer that the authority of the Commission to legislate on matters affecting the property rights of the United States in the Philippines is no greater than was theretofore possessed by the military governor and does not include the right to dispose of this property. II. Under the Spanish régime in the Philippines persons called upon to give bonds, such as are ordinarily required from civic officials, public contractors, trustees, guardians, and on appeals in legal proceedings, were permitted to deposit in specified public treasuries a sum of money in lieu of the required bond. Since the transfer of sovereignty in the Philippines a number of claims have been presented to the United States based upon allegations that the claimants, prior to the transfer of sovereignty, had made such deposit in some one of the several Spanish public treasuries of the Philippines; that the money so deposited was and continues to be the property of the claimant; that it was a special deposit, whether so designated or not, and the title to the money itself remained in the depositor; that the United States seized this private property, and should now return it. The records in the division of insular affairs, War Department, relating to the fiscal affairs of the Philippines, although incomplete, show that the $1,123,910.10 (Mexican) "seized funds" deposited with the treasurer of the islands includes $149,964.77 (Mexican) "special deposits." I have been unable to secure information as to the form or procedure in which these special deposits were made. In view of the claims presented to the United States and the allegations in support thereof, it is advisable that the Government of the United States retain the property, preserving all indicia of ownership as they were at the time the property was seized, until the questions of ownership and final disposition are determined. I therefore recommend 1. That the order of Major-General Otis permitting the treasurer of the islands to exchange $600 of said coin per week for local currency be rescinded. 2. That the Philippine Commission be advised that the War Department considers the passage of "An act providing for the sale of Spanish copper coin in the insular treasury" unadvisable until authorized by Congress. The views expressed in the foregoing report were approved by the Acting Secretary of War, and the government of the Philippine Islands was advised as follows: 3453] OCTOBER 15, 1901. SIR: I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated July 31, 1901, transmitting a copy of a bill for "An act providing for the sale of Spanish copper coins now in the insular treasury," which proposed act is transmitted prior to its adoption by the Commission, pursuant to resolution of the Commission passed July 22, 1901, copy of which is attached to your letter. I note the objections to the proposed act offered by Major-General MacArthur, military governor, and the statement in your letter that "Personally, I have very grave doubts upon the point" involved. In response to your request for "an authoritative expression of opinion" by the War Department, permit me to say that, upon consideration of the matters and questions involved, determination is made as follows: 1. The property rights acquired by the seizure as prize of war of the moneys found in the Spanish treasuries in Manila upon that city being occupied by the military forces of the United States belong to the people of the United States in their federated capacity, and the authority to dispose of property so acquired is vested in Congress. Neither the nilitary authorities of the United States nor the officials |