John H. Goetze, etc., appellant, v. The United States-Continued.

Argument of Hon. John W. Griggs, etc.—

Jefferson to Breckenridge..

Jefferson to Madison...

Pickering, Timothy

Taylor, John........

Tracy, Uriah...

Elliott, James.

Thatcher, Mr

Smilie, Mr.

Griswold, Roger...

Nicholson, Mr

Rodney, Cæsar A.

Page.

296

296, 297

298

298

299

300

301

301

301

302

302

303

305

Mitchell, Samuel

Eustis, Dr..........

Conceded power to acquire territory by treaty or conquest includes

right to prescribe terms United States will agree to in fixing future

status of inhabitants....

Nothing can be clearer than that universally accepted view in time of

Jefferson was, and always has been, that only citizens who are made

such by voluntary action of the United States expressed either in

treaty of annexation, by act of Congress, or by process of naturali-

zation

Not only are the Executive and Senatorial divisions of the Govern-

ment committed to an unvarying practice of policy which is opposed

to this false doctrine, but the whole Congress, Senate, and House of

Representatives, as a legislative body, have indorsed and followed

the practice and tenet of the Executive by passing laws in further-

ance and recognition of the treaty provisions referred to, and by the

adoption during the hundred years of legislation of numerous acts

extending the Constitution and various laws of the United States

to ceded territory.....

Jefferson to Gallatin, November 9, 1803

Gallatin to Jefferson, July 9, 1803 .

Act of Congress passed February 24, 1804, for laying and collecting

imports and tonnage in Louisiana Territory

317

Act of Congress, March, 1804, erecting Louisiana into two Territories.

Gallatin to the governor

317

317

Act of Congress, March 23, 1804, incorporating Bank of the United

States

318

Act of Congress, 1790, regarding attestation of court proceedings in the

United States.

The clause of the Constitution which declares that duties, imposts, and

excises shall be uniform throughout the United States does not

apply to nor govern these cases, because the term "United States,"

as there used, means only the territory comprised within the several

States of the Union, and was intended only for their benefit and pro-

John H. Goetze, etc., appellant, v. The United States-Continued.

Argument of Hon. John W. Griggs, etc.—

tection and not for the benefit or protection of outside territory

belonging to the nation; in the latter sense duties on imports from

these islands are uniform throughout the United States, because

they are uniformly imposed at every port in the United States, so

that there is no preference given to the ports of one State over those

of another, nor is any inequality between the several States created.

Loughborough v. Blake.

Alphabetical list of citations—

Adams History of the United States

Alaska, treaty with..

American Insurance Company v. Canter..

American Publishing Company v. Fisher (166 U.S.)

Annals of Congress-

Page.

329

330

295

312

323

335

John H. Goetze, etc., appellant, v. The United States-Continued.

Argument of Hon. John W. Griggs, etc.—

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, v. George R. Bidwell....

Samuel B. Downes et al., plaintiffs in error, v. George R. Bidwell

Henry W. Dooley et al., plaintiffs in error, v. The United States.

Carlos Armstrong, appellant, v. The United States

Argument of the Attorney-General

Alphabetical list of citations-

Benton, Thomas (on Dred Scott Case)

Gibbons v. District of Columbia

Loughborough v. Blake (5 Wheaton)

McCulloch v. Maryland...

Statutes, 1, 627..........

Story on the Constitution, 2, 957

Stoutenburgh v. District of Columbia

Sturges v. Crowninshield (4 Wheaton)

United States Statutes, 404....

339

339

341

---་

355

355

367

366

350

359

352

355

Fourteen diamond rings, Emil J. Pepke, claimant, plaintiff in error, v. The United

Order to file claimant's bond nunc pro tune as of July 7, 1900.

Fourteen diamond rings, Emil J. Pepke, claimant, etc., v. The United States-Cont'd.

Brief and argument for plaintiff in error-

I. By the treaty of peace between the United States and Spain,

signed at the city of Paris on December 10, 1898, and the ex-

change of ratifications on April 11, 1899, the Philippine Islands

became a part of the United States; the Government and the

citizens of the United States both enter said islands under the

authority of the Constitution, with their respective rights de-

fined and marked out; the former can exercise no power over

the person or property of a citizen of the United States beyond

what that instrument confers, nor lawfully deny any right

which it has reserved....

II. Being a part of the United States, the Philippine Islands are sub-

ject to the provisions of clause 1, section 8, Article I, and of

clauses 5 and 6, section 9, Article I, of the Constitution of the

United States. And as there is nothing differently stipulated

in the treaty with respect to commerce, it became instantly

bound and privileged by the laws which Congress had passed

to raise a revenue from duties on imports and tonnage...

III. The President of the United States has no legislative power. The

imposition of customs duties upon commerce between these

islands and other parts of the United States after the treaty of

peace and exchange of ratifications by Executive order is with-

out lawful authority, and the seizure of the property of the

plaintiff in error, a citizen of the United States, under such

pretended authority, constitutes a taking of his property with-

out due process of law...

Argument ....

Alphabetical list of citations—

Page.

388

389

389

390

American Insurance Company v. Canter (1 Pet.). 388, 390, 393, 399, 404

American Publishing Company v. Fisher (166 U. S., 464) . 389, 413

American Law Review..

679

Chicago, etc., Railway Company v. McGlinn (114 U. S., 542,

Gibbons v. District of Columbia (116 U. S., 404, etc.)..

Johnson & Graham's Lessee v. McIntosh (8 Wheaton, 543).

Knowlton v. Moore (178 U. S., 41)

Leitensdorfer v. Webb (20 How., 176).

Loughborough v. Blake (5 Wh., 317) ..

Mason, Colonel, circular of, August 14, 1848.

Mitchel v. United States (9 Pet., 711).

Mormon Church v. United States (136 U.S.)

389, 400

388, 393, 409

389, 420

388, 390, 392

389, 420

389,410

389, 419

396

388, 391

388, 390, 411

Fourteen diamond rings, Emil J. Pepke, claimant, etc., . The United States-Cont'd.

Brief and argument for plaintiff in error-

United States, Lyon, et. al., v. Huckabee (18 Wall., 414, etc.). 388, 390

United States v. Percheman (7 Pet., 51)

388, 391

United States v. Rice (4 Wh., 247)

402

Appendix containing treaty of Paris of December 10, 1898, and the cus-

toms tariff and regulations for the Philippine Islands

429

Harrison, ex-President, Ann Arbor speech, December 14..

469

Chicago, Milwaukee, etc., Ry. v. Tompkins (176 U. S., 167) ........

486