VIII. Powers of the Judicial Department of the United States Government, including those of Territorial Courts.... Page IX. Construction of Uniformity and Commerce Clauses of the Constitution of the United States; Federal and State Powers of Taxation and Control of Commerce... 545 546 X. Construction of Tariff and other Laws of the United States.... 547 XI. Judicial Definitions of terms used in the Constitution of the United States, and in Tariff and other Laws..... 548 XII. Application of the first ten Amendments (Bill of Rights) of the Constitution of the United States; their effect on the States, and on Federal Laws.... XIII. Fundamental limitations of Government, and their effect upon the Congressional Government of territory of the United States.... 549 549 XIV. Suability of the United States, and States, by citizens and by aliens.. 550 XV. Military Powers and Government; Military Occupancy. Prize and Conquest... 550 XVI. National Unity and the Control of the Foreign Relations of 552 on private rights of the inhabitants and on the Continuance of Local Laws of the Ceded Territory..... XIX. Personal and individual rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States 553 555 XX. Citizenship, Birth and Allegiance, as affected by Treaties, Statutes and the Constitution..... 556 XXI. Construction of Treaties and General Rules applicable thereto. Executive and Judicial Construction, Congressional Power there over...... 558 XXII. Relative Effects of Treaties and United States Statutes..... 560 XXIII. Relative Effects of Treaties made by the United States and State Laws.... 561 XXIV. When Treaties take effect as to the Contracting Governments and as to the rights of individuals affected thereby..... 561 XXV. Status of Indian Tribes and the Construction of Indian Treaties; the relative effect of Indian Treaties and State and Federal Laws..... 562 SUPPLEMENT. OPINIONS OF DECEMBER 2, 1901. Fourteen Diamond Rings, Pepke, Claimant, Opinion of Court, FUL LER, Ch. J....... 563 Concurring Opinion, BROWN, J.. Dissenting Opinions... Page 567 569 Dooley vs. United States, No. 2, Opinion of Court, BROWN, J................ 569 Concurring Opinion, WHITE, J...... Dissenting Opinion, FULLER, Ch. J.. 573 579 THE INSULAR CASES. QUESTIONS INVOLVED. The Insular Cases, so-called because they involved the status of the possessions ceded to the United States by Spain, by the Treaty of 1898 (for this treaty in full see p. 508, post, of this APPENDIX), were nine in number and were argued before the Supreme Court of the United States during the October term of 1900. They are briefly discussed in chapter II, §§ 61-61h, pages 118, et seq., ante. They are also referred to, and cited at other points in both volumes as the decisions have a direct bearing upon, and application to, many of the subdivisions of this book, both in regard to the nationality and sovereignty of the United States and the extent and effect of the treaty-making power. THE INSULAR CASES RECORDS. As stated in note 1 to § 61a, page 118, ante, after the arguments of these cases before the Supreme Court and pursuant to a joint Resolution of Congress (passed by the House of Representatives February 9, 1901, and concurred in by the Senate February 15, 1901), 12,000 copies of the "records, briefs and arguments of counsel," were printed for the use of Congress and the several departments of the Government with the following official title: "The Insular Cases, Comprising the Records, Briefs, and Arguments of Counsel in the Insular Cases of the October Term, 1900, in the Supreme Court of the United States, including the appendices thereto. Compiled aud Published Pursuant to H. R. Con. Res. No. 72, FiftySixth Congress, Second Session. By Albert H. Howe, Clerk of Printing Records, 1901. Washington, Government Printing Office, 1901." This combined record consists of 1,075 pages besides an analytical table of contents of 39 pages. The following summaries have been compiled from this volume, to which reference is constantly made. The nine cases which were argued, the points involved in each, and the time when, and counsel by whom, they were respectively argued, and the citations of the decisions in the official reports of the Supreme Court of the United States, are as follows: I. JOHN H. GOETZE DOING BUSINESS UNDER THE FIRM NAME AND STYLE OF JOHN H. GOETZ & Co., APPELLANT, VS. THE UNITED STATES. Appeal from the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. No. 340. October Term, 1900. Record filed July 9, 1900. For John H. Goetze: COMSTOCK & BROWN (56 Pine St., N. Y.) Attorneys, and EDWARD C. PERKINS (115 Broadway, N. Y.) and EVErit Brown (56 Pine St., N. Y.) of counsel, and J. B. HENDERSON, Washington (in the Supreme Court). For the United States: Before the General Appraisers, WILLIAM J. GIBSON, New York. In the Circuit Court, HENRY L. BURNETT, United States District Attorney. In the Supreme Court, JOHN W. GRIGGS, Attorney General of the United States. The petition was originally filed under the Customs Administrative Act for a refund of duties paid under protest on goods from Porto Rico entered in the Port of New York in April and June, 1899, after the ratification of the treaty of 1898 with Spain and prior to the Foraker Act. The proceedings before the appraisers were entitled, "In the Matter of Protest, Nos. 54053 F and 54168 F of John H. Goetze & Co." The Board of General Appraisers, before whom the proceedings were brought, decided on February 14, 1900, that Porto Rico was a foreign country for tariff purposes. For the decision in full see Exhibit D, pp. 8, et seq. Ins. Cas. Rec. and Treasury Decisions, volume 3, 1900, 22018 GA. 4658. Opinion by H. M. SOMERVILLE, Gen'l Appr., concurred in by GEO. C. TICHENOR and I. F. FISCHER, Gen'l Apprs. Subsequently Goetze & Co. appealed from the decision of the Board of General Appraisers to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. The case was tried before WILLIAM K. TOWNSEND, District Judge sitting at Circuit, and on June 14, 1900 he filed an opinion affirming the Board of General Appraisers. (For opinion in full see pp. 21, et seq. Ins. Cas. Rec., and 103 Fed. Rep. 72.) Thereafter Goetze & Co. appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States on assignment of error (Ins. Cas. Rec. p. 35). The writ was allowed by E. H. LACOMBE, U. S. Circuit Judge (Ins. Cas. Rec. p. 37). On October 8, 1900, a motion was made by the appellant to advance the cause upon the docket of the Supreme Court (Ins. Cas. Rec., pp. 41, et seq.) in which the Attorney General joined. The application was granted in this and other cases involving similar questions. These cases were argued simultaneously on December 18 and 19, 1900. Briefs were filed on behalf of the appellant by EDWARD C. PERKINS, ALBERT COMSTOCK, EVERIT BROWN and JOHN B. HENDERSON of counsel (pp. 45-136, Ins. Cas. Rec., and see analysis and list of cases cited in Table of Contents, Ins. Cas. Rec, pp. i-v.) A brief was filed in this case and in the case of Fourteen Diamond Rings referred to at a later point in this Appendix by JOHN W. GRIGGS, Attorney General, on behalf of the United States (Ins. Cas. Rec. pp. 137237,) and containing as appendices (on pp. 226–236) the Protocol of August 12, the treaty of 1898 with Spain, extracts from other treaties and the record in Loughborough vs. Blake, (U. S. Sup. Ct. 1821, 5 Wheaton, 317, MARSHALL, Ch. J.) A brief was also filed with leave of the court on behalf of "Industrial Interests in the States," by E. HAM and ALEX ANDER PORTER MORSE, Attorneys, and CHARLES F. MANDERSON of counsel, which sustained the position of the United States (pp. 239–273, Ins. Cas. Rec.). For analysis of these briefs and list of cases cited, see Table of Contents, Ins. Cas. Rec. pp. v-xiv. Subsequently a brief was also filed in support of the position of the Government of the United States by Charles A. Gardiner of New York City (195 Broadway). It was not included in the Insular Cases Record. The argument of the counsel for appellant is included in the briefs already referred to. At the same time argument was heard in the Fourteen Diamond Rings case referred to at another point in this Appendix and which involved the status of the Philippine Islands. The argument of the Attorney General appears in Ins. Cas. Rec. at pp. 275-337, and an analysis and list of authorities cited in the Table of Contents, Ins. Cas. Rec. pp. xiv-xvii. This case was decided May 27, 1901, in favor of the importers; no opinion was delivered as the court, BROWN, J., held that as the sole question was whether Porto Rico was a foreign country within the meaning of tariff laws, the reasons stated in De Lima vs. Bidwell, decided the same day applied, (182 U. S. 221; see opinion in full p. 506, post, of this Appendix.) II. FOURTEEN DIAMOND RINGS, EMIL J. PEPKE, CLAIMANT, vs. THE UNITED STATES. In error to the District Court of the United States for the Northern District of Illinois. No. 419, October, 1900, transcript filed September 17, 1900. Ins. Cas. Rec. 369. For the claimant, LAWRENCE HARMON and CHARLES H. ALDRICH, Chicago, Ill., Attorneys in both the District and the Supreme Court. For the United States: In the District Court, S. H. BETHEA, United States District Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois. In the Supreme Court, JOHN W. GRIGGS, Attorney General, and JOHN K. RICHARDS, Solicitor General of the United States. This case involves the right of the United States to collect duties under the Dingley Act on goods brought from the Philippine Islands after the ratification of the treaty of peace; it corresponds with the De Lima case in all respects except in so far as there may be any difference between the status of Porto Rico and that of the Philippine Archipelago as possessions or territories of the United States. If there were no difference as to the status of the different territories which were ceded by the treaty of December, 1898, the decision would naturally have followed that of the De Lima case; the fact that the court decided the De Lima case and did not decide an apparently similar case affecting the Philippines naturally affords a basis for the inference that at least one member of |