Omaha Daily Bee Newspaper, May 28, 1901, Page 2

“Fine D THE OMAHA DAILY BEE: TUESDAY, MAY 28, 1901, fee imities 15 cents yard Very close v are the \u have ever seen hest ings and styles by the scor ivals to the Ivish goods. They werican Dimities—the finest you at the price, and are in colot 15¢ per yard, Among the newest in finer goods arve these: Meroerized Sublime, 3 §1.00 Imported mereeri 5 yard 8100 tmported Swisses Beotel Madras, 20¢ Irish Linen Gin ard Bported Novelt 366, 4be per Plain colorsd L ard n, 10 yard Ilotn ¢ o Plain =il AlL colors plain chambray Plain merece Zie yard Egyptian Tis Batiste at 15¢ folid blacks loted Dimiti's, 12c and mercerized Batiste, 3¢ striped Mousseline, colored hambrays 108, 25 yard in cotton at yard 100, 1ie, 18¢, WE CLOSD SATURDAYS AT A P. M. THoMPSON, BELDEN & Co. 7. M. C. A, RUILDING, COR. 16TH AND DOUGLAS §TS. ning of his decislon that the doubtedly has Jurlsdiction in this He suid the case ralsed the single ques tlon ‘whether by the Unitad” Statos, by from a foreign power, ralsed - “foreign country within tho meaning of the tariff laws. and added tion_{nvolved in this ca whether the suars were fmportab i oler un the tariff laws, but whether, | coming as they did, from u port alleged to he domestle, they were imported from relgn country—in other w whether they Were Imported at all as that word | detined {1 Woodinff against Parham. We think the declsion in the Fassett case s conclusive to the effect that, if the ques. tion bo whether the ars were (mported or not. such question colild be ratsed bofore the board of general apprafsers, and th ether they were fmported merchandise | for the Teasons given in the Fassett | that a vessel {8 Not an importable article, | or because the “merchundise was not | broaght from n forelgn country, fs tmma- | tertal. In clther the arifcle 18 not | Limported. i C * Linbility, Conceding, then, that section 3011 has been ropen A that no remeds oxist under the « administrative act, docs it follow tha whatever will ile? If there be an the courts will Took far to supply an adequate remedy i an action lay ot common law. the repeal of kections 2031 and 1l regulating proceed Ings In customs cuses (that fs, - tuening upon the classification of merchandise) to nko way for another proceeding before » board of general appraisers i the same Cluss Of casén, did not destroy any right of uction that might have existed ather than customs cases, and the that by ‘section 2 no colfectors shall be | liable “for or on account of any Fulings or declsions ux to the classification of nuch merchandise or the duties charged thereon, | or the collection of any dues, charges or | duticx on_ or Account of any sich me chundise,” or any other matter which th importer’ m have brought before the Loard of general appradsers, does not. res strict the right which the owner of the merchandise might have against the col- lcetor in cases not falling within the cus- toms administrative act. It the position of the government be correct, the plaintifr would be remedyless, and If a collector should ‘sleze and hold for duties goods brought from New Orleans or any sther | ncededly domestic port, to New York cre would be no method of testing his right 0" mako puch selzure. It in hardly poksible that the owner could be place in" this position 17be visen | Atter citing numerous opinions and au- thorlties to show that the action of the plaiutiffs in error was properly brought, the court holds that “‘whether these car- 80es of sugar were subjoct to duty depends wholly upen the question whether Porto Rico was 4 foreign country at the time the sugars were shipped, since the tarift act of July 24, 1897, commonly kmown as the Dingley act, declares that there shail be leyled, collected and paid upon all ar- ticles’ imported from foreign countries, cer- taln duties therein specified. A country was defined by Mr. Chiet Justice Marshall and Mr. Justice Storey, to be solely within the sovereignty of a foreign natlon, and without the sovereignty of the United States territory acquired cesslion forelgn Status of Porto Rico. The status of Porto Rico was this faland had been for some months undes milltary occupation by the United Stat: as a4 conquered untry, when by the se ond article of the treaty of peace between the United States and Spain, signed De cember 10, 1808, and ratiied April 11, 1599, Spain ceded to the United States the island of Porto Rico, which has ever sinc re- mained In our possession, has been governed and admmist us. It the ase depended solely up ts, the question were broadly whether a country which had been us, the cession accepted, possess! ered and the fsland occupled and admin- Istered without interference by Bpain .or Ny other power, was a. foreign country or domestic territory, it would seem that there could be as littie hesitation In anfwering this question as there would be 1 detormin. ing the ownership of a house deeded in fee simple to @ purchaser, who had accepted the ‘deed, gone Into possession, pald taxes and made improvements without let or hin- drance, from his yendor. But it is earnestly Inslsted by the goVernment that It nevee could have been the intention of congress to admit Porto Rico into a customs unlon with the United States, and that while the Island “may be to a ‘certaln extent dos mestic territory, [t still remains a *forel country" under’ the tarift laws untfl gress has embraced it within the general revenue_ situation. At gredt length the court then discussed the ‘similar cases nrising from previous acquisitions of territory by the United States, reviewing very fully former deei- #lons of the court lnyalving questions, such as are presented in this case. The pos- sesslons ‘n connection. with which the maln - question involved in this case has risen are: Louisiana, Florida, Texas, Cali- fornia and Alaska. Each case was taken up in order and analyzed minutely. The court then presented its conclusions in the following languag, Court's Conclusion Adverse. As whowing the construction put upon this question by the legislative department, we need to add only that section 2 of the Foraker act makes a_distinetion between forelgn countries and Porto Rico, by endct- ing that the same duties shall be pald upon Salt Rheum It may become chronic It may cover the body with large, Inflamed, burning. itching, scaling patches and cause intense suffering, It has been known to do so. Do not delay treatment Thoroughly cleanse the system of the humors on which this ailment de- pends and prevent their return. Th, The medicine taken by Mrs. Ida E. Ward, Cove Point, Md.. was Hood's Sersaparilla. Bhe writes: * 1 bad a disagresable itching on my arms which | concluded salt rheum. 1 began taking Hood's Sarssparilis and in two days fel It was not long before Hood’s Sarsaparilla Promizes to cure and keeps the promise. !t Is positively unequaled for all cutaneous eruptions. Take it | | | | | yard AGBXTS FOR FNSTHR KID GLOVES ASD MeCALL'S PATTRRNA 1 | | | 1l artic ‘m'w T | | I 1 | ident, Rico from United State to he the « Imported fnto Port than those of the cquired by law mported <n into trie From this of the declstons of this jurt, the instractions of the executive d pAFtmente And the above act of congress. ident that from 180, the date of Mr Gallatin's letter to the present time, there not @ shred of authority, except the aletum in Fleming against Page, for hold- ing that a district coded to and In the welon of the United States remaing for purpose o forelgh country. Hoth (hesc N8 mist exist to prodi chunge U purposes a8 wae held 18 A treaty sufficient without a The practice thus continued 1 entitind be disre for cogent that such igalr territory nossesuio departments than half a centar welght and should not garded nor overturned except reasons and unless 1t be clear construction be erroneous Bue were this presented as an original question we should be impelied frresistably to the same concluston By urticle xi. section 2 of th tion, the prestdent 18 given power with the advice and con to make treaties, provid two-thirds )f the enators present concur,” and by article v Cthis constitution and the laws the United Stutes which shall be m in pursuance thereof, and all treaties m: or ‘which shall be mide, under the a1thor ity of the United Statos, shall be preme law of the innd.” Each is a Power, observed that to the quest) tween 8 and both are controfl A law requires th both houses Of congress and, except in certain specitiod cases, the signature of the president. A treaty {8 negotiated and made by the pres with the concurrence of two-thirds of the genators present, but each of them I8 _the supreme law of the land One of the ordinary incidents of a t the cesslon of territory. It fs not tch to way It is the rule, rather than exception, that & treaty of peace, fol- lowing upon a war, provides for a cession Lerritory to the vietorloas party. The rritory thus acquired is acquired as ab- itely as if the annexation were made, s in the case of Texas and Hawall, by 1 act of Congress. 2 It follows from of the treaty of Parls the island became territory of the United States although not an organized territory in the technical sense of the word. It is true Chi cott agalnst Sandford that the te clause the constitution was confined and intends to be confined to the territory whic at time belongedi to, or was claim the United States and \as within “thelr boundaries, and was - sett led by the treaty with Great Britain and was not intended to apply to territory subue. auently acquired. He seemed to differ in this construction from Chier Just, Mar- shall, who, in speaking of Fiorida before it became 'a state, remarked that it tone |H|‘||v‘-|l to he n territory ot the Tnited ates, governed by the te orfal clause of the constitition PEIUA dlaty Acquinitl Involves Jurisdl But whatever be the sourc {ts uninterrupted exerc ise by century and the repeated clarations of this court have settled the law that the right to acquire territory involves the right | to govern and dispose of It. Indeed, it fs | searcely too much to say that there has H:l! been a session of CONgress since the ||l:‘r|lnry of Loulsiana was purchased that that body has not enacted legislation based suiiwd aathority to govern and control the territories, It is r'n" “””I\“”v\!\ Which arlses, not necessarily from t ter. | ritortal clau 'f the constitution, but from | the necessities of ‘the case, and’ from he ,‘;m:nv‘vml the phates to act upon the sub- ect. " Under this power congress may de Wwith territory & -q‘nlrv by ,‘Afi(r""(”\‘ "I‘]:.‘I\“Al]! mninister Its Rovernment as it does that of | the District of Columbia; 1t may organize ,ll al territorial government; it may admit i 1:#1 A state upon an equality with other Atates; it may scll its public’ lands to in- ividual citizens, or may donate them s homesteads to ‘actual settlers, In. short when once ac uired by treaty, Iv belongs d States ect to ‘“,';.'"'";"'“" of ('Hllk!fl"l:"l.nd ok il erritory thus acquired can remain . elgn country under the *tarif Jaw ' anly upon one of two theories: Iither that the word “forelgn” applies to such countries us were forelgn at the time the statute wis on notwithstanding any subsequent change In their condition, or that they re. main forelgn under the (arif laws until con. .frt‘mt bas properly formed them within the customs union of the states. The first the. ory Is obviously untenable. While a stat- ill|-u vln [trv!umml to speak from the time of 3 enactment, it embraces ull nuch persons ul: things as sub; rquently fall within BCOPe, And conses to apply to such as the after fall without Its scope, Thus, a sthi. ute forbldding the sale of lquers 1o min- ors, applles not only to minors In oxistence At the ‘time the statute was enacted. hut to Al vn?,\l.l,”un; subsequently born;' and PPy to such as thereafto thapes o appIY to such as thereafter reach When It Ceanes 1o Be Forelgn. Now when the constitution of the United the states shall not do cer in things, this declaration operates not only upon the thirteen original states, but upon all who subsequently become stich. and Eress places certaln restriotions powers of a territorial leglsiature, stch re. structlons cease to operate the moment such territory Is admitted as a state By parity of reasoning a country ceases o be toreign the stant it becomes domestic 8o, too, If congress seo fit to cede one of its newly acquired territories (even as- suming that it had the right to do so) to a forelgn power, there could be no doubt that from the day of such cession and the dellvery of possession such territory would become a forelgn country, and be reinatated #s wuch under (he tariff laws. Certainly no act of congre, Rould be necessary in such cago to declare fhat the laws of the United Sthtes had ceased to apply to it Phe theory that a.country vematns for- elgn with raspect to the (ariff Tawa until congresd hax acted by wmbracing 1t within the “customs union, presupposes that s country may be domestic for one pirpise and forelgn for another. It may unde.i:. edly become necessary for the adequate administration of u domestic territory fo pass a speclal act providing the proper mi- chinery and officers, as the president would have no authority, ' excent under the war power, to, administer it himself; but act is necessary to make it domestic terri- tory if once it has been ceded to the United States. Appropriation Not an ue. We cxpress uo,opinion as to whether ¢ gress” 1§ bound to appropriate the mon To pay for It This has been much dis. cussed by writers upon constitutional law, but it 18 not neceseary to consider in this case, as congress made prompt appropria- ton of the money stipulated In the treaty. This theory also presupposes that terri: tory may be held indefinitely by the United States: ‘that It may be treated In every particular, except for tarlff purposes, as domestic terrltory; that laws may be on- acted und enforced' by officers of the United States, sent there for that purpose; that lusurractions may be suppressed, wars car- rled on, revenues collecked, thxds Tmposed in short, that everything may be done which a government can do within its own boundarics, and yet that the territory may sl remain @ forelgn country, that this state of things may continue for years, tor ‘l century eve but that until congress b the exeeutive for more e constitu- by and nate no distinction N of suprem exeept that constitution aty ta too this that by ratification Justice Tuney held in ritorial f this power, conaess for [ | upon the | Downes | merchandise brought when con- | ta othermise. 1t still Femaing a forelgn {country, To hold 1hat this cun be done as we deem to be find no warr he § pure Ju nt for it Woers conferree the non-action temporary in- convenle loes not follow ‘hat courts of § orized to remedy by inverts ry meaning of ress Do. ( Rress by amary Ign countr e question at ot what it} tacter o N demand this pur toappropri motey - for be sufficlent? Apparentiy appropria the dutle imports to from ¢ Wi acts Hhtl Juarantine statlons, g5 have in' this Hecting ntry for the e sufficlont making appr ice, for the es main- ere wilt yuses, for the for that «ffect mplete locul veservation ipon commerce wufficient vernment be sound All these propositions Rico, and it fs insisted that it is stiil a forelgn country within the meaning of the tariff laws, We are unabi ieaulesca in this assumption that & territory mav be at he same tme both forelgn and domestic Right to Colleet, A slngle furiher po eldered 18 Insim ere Mare ap the ben ARIOUNT OF CUBLOMS rey portations by the Rico since the forees Octobe together with with the utles that | will i those if the oget contention & since acty embracing ne to he con 1 et of con- 7 stat. 150), orto Rico the nue recaived on im- United States from Porto cvacuation by the Spanish 18, 183 (0 January 1, 1900, any further ciiktoms revenues lect importations from Porto Rico since January 1, 190, or that shall heres after ho collected nnder xisting 1w, 1x o recognition by congross the right collect auch “duties as upon importations from a forelgn country and a recognitio of the fact that Rico contir to be a foreigr nthl congress em- braced it wi sme unton. 1t be seciously questioned whether (his s any - thing more than & recognition of the f. that there were moneya in the territory not subject to exIsting appropriation law. Per- haps we may go further i say that ao far as dutles were patd voluntarily and without protest, the legality of the payment was Intended to be recogilzed, but It can clearly have no retronctive effect us to moneys theretofore pald under protest for which an action to' recover back had aiready been brought Henee the o As, however, the i brought March 13, cleven days befor the Was_pasked, (88 HRNt 05 1evoons the ey sued could not be taken away subsequent act of congress, Plain- sue fu assumpsit for money which the tor has in his hunds jusily and equit- ably belonging to them. To say that con- kress could by @ subsequent act deprive them of the TRt (0 prosecute this act would be bevand its power. In any event it should not be interpreted so us to ma it _retroactive We are theref the time these duties we Rico was not u forelgn country meantng of the tarlff lnws of the United States; that the dutles were fllegally exacted and that the are entitled to recover them biack The judgment of the circuit court for the southern district of New York s the fore reversed and the case remanded to that court for further proceedings In con- sonance with this opinion. the Dow Justice Brown also delivered the opinion of the court in the case of Downes against Bidwell, which suit was brought by to recover back duties to th amount of $659.35, exacted and paid under protest upon certain oranges consigned to the plaintil at New York and brought thither from the port of San Juan, in the island of Porto Rico, during the month of November, 1900, This case involved the question whether into the port of New York from Porto Rico, since the passage of the Foraker act is exempt from duty, notwithstanding the third section of that act, which requires the payment of “15 per cent of the duties which are required to be levied, collected and paid upon like articles of merchandise imported from for- cign countries.” The circuit court of the United States for the southern district of New York sus- tained (he government in this position in imposing a duty b ernal. ton In this case was 1600, tiffs colle e of the opinfon that at evied Porto within the but a territory n rw' Case, Sustains Circult Cour The supreme court confirmed the opinion of the circult court, saying, “We are of opinion that the island of Porto Rico is a territory appurtenant and belonging to the United States, but not a part of the United States, within the revenue clause of the constitution; that the Foraker act is con- stitutlonal, o far as it imposes dutles upon imports from such fslands and that the plaintiff cannot recover back the duties exacted in the case.’ The opinion of the court went into the case very fuly. Justice Brown early in his opinion outlined the distinction between this case and the Delima case, which had | just been decided, saying In the we hold that of Delfma ogainst Bidwell upon the ratification of the treaty of peace with Spain Porto Rico ceased to be @ forclgn country and that duties were no longer collectable upon me chandise brought from that island. We are now asked to hold that it became a part of the United States within that provision of the constitution which declares that “all duties, imposts and excises shall b form throughout the United States.” 1If Porto Rico be a part of the United States the Foraker act imposing duties upon its products {s unconstitutional, not only by reason of a violaton of the uniformity clause, but because, by section 9, “‘vessels bound' to or from 'one state cannot he gbliged to enter, pay duty, ete., in another.” In the broader ‘question which the revenie clauses of (he constitution extend of thelr own force to our newly-acquired territories the constitution ftself does not answer the must be found in the government, in the opiufon of its con- temporaries, in’ the pictorial construction put on it by congress and by the decisions of this court question. Its solution ates Justice Brown then entered upon a review of the formation of the government and the constitutional provision requiring that dutles, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States, saying that t I8 explained by subsequent provisions of the constitution that ‘no tax or duty | shall be laid on articles exported from any state’ and ‘no preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the people of oue state over those of an- other, nor shall vessels bound to or from one state be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.’ " In short, he concluded oun that the constitution deals with states, people and their representatives. The acquisition of territory and the formation of territorles was discussed and many authorities quoted. As a result of these citations the justice lald down the following gemeral conclusions Ellminating from the opinfons of court ull expressions unnecessary to articular cage and in the exact point decided in each following proposition may be considered as established n Territories Are States. the Distriet of Columbin and the territories are not states within the judfcfal of the constitution giving jurisc ween cltizens of different point their ritories are not of the revised tlon 06 permitting writs of error from this court in cases where the validity of a state's statute l& drawn In question. 3. That the District of Columbla and the territories ure states, as that word is used In treaties with foreign owers, with re- spect to the ownershi sposition and In- herftance of property 4. That the territories are not states within the clause of the constitution pro= viding for the creation of a supreme court and Such Inferlor courts as congress may see fit to establish 5. That the constitution does not apply to forelgn courts or to trials therein con- ducted and that congress may lawfully provide for such trials before consular tribunals, without the iIntervention of a grand or petit jury 6. That where the constitutic once formally extended by con territories, neither congress nor torfal legislature ent therewith In his opinion Justice Brown referred at length to the decision of Justice Taney in the Dred Ecott case, giving especlal. gon- states within the mea statutes, sec- has been 088 1o terri- can enact laws inconsist- may | tcial | sideration upon | ke | plaintifts | | United | | Judicial, | between property fo the sentiment expressed by 1 [ him that there is ho power iven by the to the federal naintain colonies bordering on the United States or at a distance ruled and governed at its own pleasure and it a new « admitted it needs no further legislation by congress, because the jtself - defipes - the relative rights and powers and duties of the state and the citizens of the state and the fed eral government, But no power is given 1o acquire a territory to be held and gov- erned permanently In that character Jusgtice Brown expressed the opinion that was unfortunate, in view of the excited condition of the country at the time the Scott opinfon was. rendered, just before the beginning of the civil war, that the chief justice had feit tmpelled to discuss the question upon its merits It is," he said, “sufficient say that the country did not acquiesce in the opin- fon and the civil war, which shortly there- after followed, produced such changes in as well as pubiic, sentiment as seriously fmpair the authority of this government 10 ablish or to be statc constitution it of to to He added: “The power prohibit slavery in the territories fa so different from the power to impose duties upon ter- ritorlal products and depends upon such different provisions of the constitution that they can scarcely be considered as analogous unless we aseumed broadly that of the constitution attached 10 the territories as well as to the states a claim quite inconsistent with the position of the court in the Canter case. The dif- fleulty with the Dred Scott case was that the court refused to make a distinction in.general and a wholly to exceptional class of property Some Precedents, Taking up the éase in hand the continued his opinion, saying The practical fnterpretation put by con- gross upon the constitution has been long continned and wniform to the effect that the constitution is applicable to territories cauired by purchase of conauest only when and &0 far as eongress shall direct. Not withstanding fta duty fo “guaraitee to every state In this unfon a republican form government” congress did not hesitate in the origlnal organization of the terri torles of Loulsiana, Florida, the Northwr territory and its subdivision of Ohfo, In- diana, Michigan, Tlinofs and Wisconsin and &tiil more rvecently i the case of Alaska, to establigh a form of government bearing n much greater analogy to o British crown’ colony than a republican sta Amerfca, nnd to vest the legislative power either a governor and councll or & gov jor and judges to be appointed by the pregident We are alsa of epinjon that power to ac- quire territory by treaties implies not oniv the power to govern such terrl but to preseribe upon what terms the ' United States will recefve fts indmbitants and what their status shall be in what Chief Justice Marshall termed the “American empire Thore seems¢ to be no middle ground he- tween thie position and the docirine that if the inhabitants do not become, imme diately upon annexation. citizens' of the States, their children thereafter burn, whether savages or civilized, are such and ‘entitled to all the rights privileges and_immunities of citizens. If such be their status the consequences will be cx tremely serfous. Indeed it Is doubtful ‘It congress would ever assent to the acquisi- tion of territory upon the conditfon that its Inhabitants, however foreign they mas be to our habits, traditions and modes of life. shall become nt once citizens of the Unfted States. Tn all its treaties hitherto the treaty making power has made special proviston for this subject irave apprehensjons of da re folt many eminent ‘men, a an un- trained posseskion of power on the part of congress may,lead o unjust and op- pressive leglalation, in_which the natural rights of territdHes, or thefr fnhabitants, may be engulfed in a centralized despotism These fears, hawever. find no justitication in_the actioh of congress in the past cen- tury, nor in the conduct of the Rritlsh Parlfament toward {ts outlying possessions #ince the American revolution Islanders Are Safe Anyhow. justice by Further along Justice Brown remarked Whatever mav be finally decided by the Ameriet \Jll’flfllr’ 8% to the status of these ixlands and thair inhabitanta—whether they shall be introduced Into the sisterhood of atates or be permitted to form independent governments—it does not follow that, in the meantime., awaiting that decision, the people are in the matter of personal rights unprotected by the provisions of our con- stitution and subject to the merely arbi trary control of congress. Even If re- garded as allens, they are entitle under the principles the constitution to be protected in lite, liberty and property Large powers must necessarily be en- triigted to congress in dealing with these problems and “we are bound to assume that they will b Judiclously exerclsed That these powers may be abused s possi- ble. But the same may he sald of its powers under the constitution as well as outside of It. Human wisdom has never devised a form of government so perfe that It may not be perverted to bad pur- por It “f« never conclusive to argue the possession of certaln powers from poseible abuses of them. Tt Is xafe v that If congreas should venture upon legislation manifestly dictated by selfish Interests it would recelve quick rebuke at the hands of the people. Indeed it i #carcely possible that congress could do a ter injustice to thas {slands than 1d_be {nvolved In holding that it cou'd ose on the states taxes and im- posts without taxing the same imposts to them. The same requirements would bring | them at once within our internal revenue system, including stamps, licenser, exclses nd ali the paraphernalia of that system nd applying it to territories which have had no experfence of this kind and where it would prove An intolerable burden Foretathers Didn't Anticipate, Commenting upon the virtual absence of provision in the comstitution for the ac- quisition of territory, Justice Brown says it can only be accounted for on the ground that the framers of that instrument did not foresce the country's future possibilities in that respect. He sald If it be once conceded that we are at Uiberty to acquire forelgn territory, a pre- sumption arises (hat our power with re- e ————————Se——— NEW THE WAY OUT. Made a Study of His Food. It is not always that the user of food understands about that food, but a gentle- man in Cincinnati “writing about Grape- Vuts expresses himself perfectly. He says business man devoting himself to hard mental labor, requires different food than a man doing muecular work. I became aware of a dull, heavy feeling in my head day by day which did an untold damage to my work. Verdict, intestinal Indigestion; punishment, a severe diet list, leaving out starchy foods, sugar and fat Up to this time, with the most precise care In cooking, the ordinary breakfast food came to the table a pasty, starchy mass. Added to that was sugar and more or less white bread, which gave an excess of starchy food that could not be digested This indigested mass passed into the intes- tines, creating gas and all of the distress- Ing symptoms both of body and brain I was put on Grape-Nuts Food for the reason that it is made of selected parts of wheat and barley, thoroughly cooked at the factory, giving to the body the starchy part of the food (which is necessary), pre- digested, that is, turned into dextrose or grape sugar. This furnished the sweet needed, without the use of cane sugar and gave me the starchy principle of food al- ready passed into the second condition, ex- actly in the same manner as a healthy body digests it. Atter eating Grape-Nuts for a short time, 1 found & most remarkable improvement in my health, and 1 also discovered the rea- son why the claim made on the package is true, that one pound of Grape-Nuts, which is pertectly absorbed by the body, will afford more nutrition than tem pounds of meat, wheat or bread, Imperfectly digested, 1 can assure anyone that a week or ten daye’ consclentious use of Grape-Nuts will prove far more convincing testimony than eny written words. I subscribe myselt a grateful conswmer. Please do not publish my name.' Anyome who will write to the Postum Cereal .Co, Ltd., Battle Creek, Mich. and enclose stamp, can be supplied with the name and address. | these other relations and its preducts hence cuch territory s t power r nations have been somed With Tespect to (erritories them. | limiting the power cxercise within intended to 1 territories as wtes should there ns shos of that w o « which apect ¢ which ¢ o exercise auired by Which congress was | United States [t was al It Wwith regard to such peaple of the United 8 after acquire. such limitat N expressed. [nstend constitution King the torritorial Abs i its terms Iimitations upon the 1ng with them legate 1 Rress themeelves possessod and as they POWOT 10 acquire new territory none to delegate in that fogfeal infe from this | gress had power to scquire territory which i conceded. that power was i hampered by the constitutional provisions Evolatio of Freedom, In the Inst paragraph of his opinion. be fore announcing the court’s opinion, Justice Brown said Patriotle and_intelligent men may widely as to the desirable of that acquisition, but this fs solely cal question. We can only consider aspect of the case so far as to that no contruction of the constitution should be rdopted which would prevent congress from constdering each case upon fts merits, un less the language of the minute impera- tively demand it A fdlse step at this time might be fatal to (he development of what Chief Justice Marshall called “the Ameri- can empire he choice i some the natural gravitation of small toward large ones In others, the of ‘a successful war in il others, may bring about conditions which would render the Wnnexation of distant possessions de- efrab) it fen sam the wpe The states could a o sich power as h connertion that if gifrer | this ot a polth this inhabited by races, Aiffering from us fn religion, ms, 1A ws lods of (@ i oand s of thought, the adminisiration of nment nnd justic cording (o AUR Saxon principles, may’ for a time be poseible and (he question at once whether large concessions ought not made for a_time, that ultimately our own theorles may be ‘carrl I the bless nge of & fres government under the con stitution extended to them. We decline to | hold that there fs anything in the constitu tion to forbid such action HOLD DISSENTING OPINIONS Harlan, Brewe ":l.“‘-.'"“ ! Chivt Justice Differ Less those possessions are 1 o WASHINGTON, May 27.—Justice M Kenna read a dissenting opinion in the De- | lima case, stating that Justices Shivas and | White joined in his views. The majorty, | he said, proceeded on the simple proposi tion that to settle whether Porto Rico “forelgn country” or “domestic territory,” Is to settle the controversy in litigation in the particy case. But fn his view, it could not turn on 8o easy a definition Between the extremes there ware ather re lations which Porto Rico might sustain to the United States, and it could be demon strated that Porto Rico occupled one of [ Radicnl | is were subject to dutics The history of our country.” said Justice McKenna, “has examples of the acquisition of foreign territory--examples of what re lationship such territory bears fto the United States authorities, exeoutive, legis- lative and judicial—as to what was wise in statesmanehip, as well as what was logal and constitutional in withholding or ex- tending our laws fo wuch territory. and finding these examples and authorities fn the way (he opinion of the court attempts to answer or distinguish or overrule them. Wherein He Differs. He then cited the cases of the United States ngainst Rice and Fleming against Page, referred tu by the majority, and said the latter attempted to reconcile them and dismissed a large part of Chief Justice Taney's declsion in the Page case as dicia He thought both cases reconcilable, on the ground that both recognized inevitable con- ditions. Such recognition made govern- ment provident and not haphazard. It le to the execulive and the legislative de- partments that which pertains 1o them. The apipions oxproseed in Fleming agalnst Page that. the boundaries of our countryl could not. be enlarged or reatricted by the advance or retreat of armies. and that whether duties should be levied depended on congress granting authority, should be accepted as wise and considerate of the different functions of the executive, legis- lative and judicial departments and of their independence. Why should it, then, be discarded as dictum? If constancy of judicial decision 18 necessary to regulate the relatlons and property rights of individuals, is not stancy of decision the more necessary when | it may influence or has influenced th of a nation? If the other great depart- ments of the goverament must look to the judicial for light, that light should burn steadily. It should not, like the exhala-| tions of a marsh, shine to mislead. Dis-| tinctions, he contended, always had been recognized between territory quired and that which wa: within the acknowledged limits of the United States. In American Insurance Company against Canter, Justice Johnson, in speaking of the acquisition of | Florida, sald that the court had most ex- plicit proof that the “understanding of our | public functionaries Is, that the govern- ment and laws of the United States do not extend to such territory by the mere act of cession.” These were the utterances of men who had made the constitution pos- sible and had conceived and written it Was it to be sald that we understand what they had written better than they them- selves? After Californi Justice McKenna then called attention to the fact that after California’s anncxation our customs Jaws bad been extended over it and asked why was this necessary If they applied of their own force. He also con- troverted other historical precedents cited by the majority and then attacked the ma- jority for asserting that without precedent it would be frresistibly impelled to the conclusion that by a cesslon of territory that territory automatically became a part of us. The treaty, he sald, could not have an automatic force contrary to its terms or greater than them. Whether Porto Rico was a foreign country within the meaning of the revenue laws depended on the treaty. By the mere act of acquisition of foreign country we did not endanger our tariff sys- tem and the revenues of the government. Such a law regarded certain conditions “whether it be enacted for revenue only or for protection and revenue. Its entire plan may be impaired or be destroyed by change in any part. The revenues of the govern- ment may be lessened, even taken away by change; the industrial policy of the country may be destroyed by change. We are ro- pelled by tbe argument which leads to such consequences, whether regarding our own country or tbe foreign country made ‘do- mestlc.’ To set the word forelgn In antithesis to the word domestic proves nothing. The troversy {8 narrower. It Is whether a particular tarift law applies. That, in Mmay be the consequence of the princinie that all laws apply. Or that customs laws apply by reason of the provision of the constitu n which requires duties, imposts and excises to be uniform throughout the United Btates, and the treaty-making power cannot prevent the application of that provision Something to Fear. That principle I8 asserted by counsel and | is very simple, but applled, as counsel apply I8 fraught with grave conse- quence. It takes this great country out of the world and shuts it up within it& bound- aries and cripples the power to make var and peace. It may take away the [ruits of victory, and If we may confemplate the Dosaibility of disaster, 1L may take away the means of mitigating that The treaiy-making power i3 as much a constitutional power as the legislative or Jadiclal powers. It in ¢ attribute of soverelgnty It may war or tollow war. There can rhal lim- {tatlons upon ite exercise . wisely, none were attempted Whitever restraints should be put upon It might have to leld To the greater restraints of life or death not only materlal property, but natlonal existence. These, of course, are extreme contingenafes, but they are not impossihl con- Annexation. | frreconctiable | with | authority js exerted, were conceded tution I actlon { would surely take no mean to 18, They which counsel urge imitations are mt of them, At there are 1 artainly not those In conclusion conside difficulties of any vie as had red nation new situation & helpless fatality therefore, he thought elative and hot judicial Justice Gray announced that Alssented from the majority opinion briefly that its judgment appeared with the 14 Fleming against Page anc opinion of the majority of in the cuse today decided against Bidwell Different irged We d ac iy which fons to his mind, suggested such general and sweep. been lald down by (i wct, neither we nor would stand boun The whole matter was essentially leg we to hin of this court the Justices Downes Ny n Follow Downes case, Justice White opinion, in which he safd and McKenna united, concurring decree aMrming the judgment Downes case, but placing it on e in of the but fn Justice this case, he vision of the onflict Brown with those xpressed The question at fssue Iy sald. was whether the pro constitution giviog power to lay duties, imposts and excises but requiting that they should be uniforn “Throughout -the United States,” had beer violated by the Foraker act duties on goods coming from into the United States. The proposiiions elaborately argued the trial, that government of the United States °d by the constitution, that in it Hmite the power of does so everywhere, Porto Ric the govern ment wherever never could be any serfous question exercises an authority which the consti confers, that the applicable limi of the constitution control it. Whilst was true universally, in every question was not whether the co followed the flag. but granting that it 0. what provision was applicable to partic- ular case ses Congresa Powerless to Harm. The cases which it is said were an ex- ception certain general limitations in the constitution property, which withdrew all congress. Such limitations where applicable and of cours be transgressed “In view of this were were every could never the opinion went on “there I8 in reason then no room in this cuse to contend that congress can destroy the Hberties of the people of Porto Rico (Continued on Third Page.) Piles ¢« A Withont the KKnifr. Ttching, Blind, Bleeding or Protruding Plles. Your druggist will refund money if PAZO OINTMENT falis you. &0 cents, to ¢ Dandruff Gure Mission in Omaha Fulfilled. There is No Reason Why People Should be Troubled With Dan- druff and Fall- ing Hair. The A. R. Bremer Company atated that under . & testimonfal he publi consent of the party mise will never be Could the public grateful testimonial persons « by Dandrufl Cur onvince them as to jta mer its. The following late reports the Hoston Store Drug Department “Iprocured a sample bottle of dandrufi cure and it helped me at once; have clearly wiving 1t and Infringed upon datly 1 the it ved at vour the resulis. D. A, BURNETT. WANAMAKER & BROWN The Foremost Tatloring House of Ameriea, The pride of apparel Is not confined to the woman. Every man wants to appear at his best. We are in a position to help him to do this and that at a saving to him of from 35 to 50 per cent. Our Profit on cach sult is merely a broker's com- itses §13 made 10 meas ure uits Al our goods guaranteed all wool. Omaha Branch Store. 122 South 5th St., of Douglas. A Weak Stomach? Muli’s Grape Tonic. Strengthens the nerves of the stomach and enables it distribute throughout the system all the nutritlon of the food eaten It aleo has « laxative effect which is, most valuable, constantly cleansing the system without weakenfng ft. By reason of its wonderful tonfc and laxative effects and delicloas taste, we cheerfully recommen Mull's Grape Tonic 1o those suffering from weak stomachs and dyspepsia A large bottle for 50 cents See Your Drugglats Mull's Lightning of one great burden drink 1t 2 cents. The Best Heater for You 1« the one that burns any kind of fuel, con- sumes all gases and smoke; requires’ little attention: send heat through the house and not up the chimney. Buch is the ROUND OAK FURNACE Don't buy & furnace until you get our fur- nace book, sent free Estate of P, D. BECKWITH, Dowagiac, Mich Sold In Omaha by Milton Rogers & WhSoATaNSL Pl e fi"“’ Setapuard itvon): " WILGoR B COsRe e vaih L. Pale. Pe. iiller relleves Iife Pain. Rub it Son und are necessarlly to be regarded when 80ld oy Sherman & MeCuanell Drug Ce Justice McKeana sald these the the would have any choice in he likewise saying unanimous opinton 1 the Justice Brown's opinion in the delivered an Juatices Shiras the grounds which he sald were not only different from | by congress n n imposing the being trument, | e | There that when the gevernment of the United States this the ttution did in favor of liberty and | power from | your | circumstances would | wed without the full | their | 1! bougl large bottle and am satisfied with | geit a targe bottle and i satistied with | naaoration uay! An Excellent Combination. The pleasant method and beneficial effects of the well known remedy, 8YRUP oF Fias, manufactured by the CALIFORNIA 16 Synup Co., illustrate the valueof obtaining the liquid laxa- tive principles of plants known to be medicinally laxative and presenting them in the form most refreshing to the tasto and acceptable to the system, It is the one perfect strengthening lax tive, cleansing the system effectuall dispelling colds, headaches and fevers gently yet promptly and enabling one to overcome habitual constipation per- manently. Its perfect freedom from every objectionable quality and sub- stance, and its acting on the kidneys, liver and bowels, without weakenin, or irritating them, make it the idea! laxative. In tha procoss of manufacturing figs are used, as they are pleasant to the taste, but the medicinal qualities of the remedy are obtained from senna and other ‘aromatic plants, by a method known to the CALIFORNIA' F1a Syrup Co. only. In order to get its beneficial effects and to avoid imitations, please remember the full name of the Company printed on the front of every package. CALIFORNIA FIG SYRUP CO. SAN FRANCISCO, CAL. LOUISVILLE, KY. NEW YORK, N. Y. Forssle by all ['*uggists. —’rice 50o. ver botele WHEN IT GETS GOOD i AND HOT IN OMAHA You will wish you had placed your order for your summer suit with Nicoll—We make suits in three days—and we make them right, too. $20 that would much to $12 cheviots stripes to $40 for the credit charge for: ew o and suits tailors twice as Pants § imeres, English e ] THE TAILOR Karbach Block, ~ 209-11 S. I5th §t AMUSE OPENINC OF THE MAGNIFICENT Family SUMMER RI!ORTK W. W. Cole, Mgr. Thursday, May 30 PERFORMANCES BVERY AFT ERNOON AND EVENING W. W. COLE’S Greatest of All Great Shows Allied with Morris Bros.’ Famous Dog and Pony CIRCUS Hundred Other Attractions—TWO CONCERTS DAILY BY LORENZ'S Celebrated Concert Band Of Thirty Pleces A FASHIONABLE RENDEZVOUS, A CHILDREN'S PARADISE The biggest amusement enterprise ever launched in Omahi Admission to Park, 1oc. Childr excepting Sundays and holldays Hill cars run to entrai furnished from all other lincs FAR CHWAY, '18th and Douglas Sts 4 nays ;l‘:r?dlgf May 21 | | AFTERNOON AT 2:30——NIGHT AT 8:18 | Gentry’s Famous Trained Animal Show SEE PINTO, NERO AND TRILBY ELRB- And a free, Inut PERFORMING PHE SMALT H IVITY PHANTS IN ADMISSION—Children 15¢ WATCH FOR THE ( REET PARADE, DAILY Adults LAND ¥ AT 11 A " & M. Woodward & Burgess, BOYD’S [’ el Wi TONIGHT -8:15 § M. BEAR Presents |Ferris Stock Co. Wednesday and W Mat, CERIENDS. Thursday, Friday and Saturday and Sature day and Sunday Matinees SOARMEN Extra Matinee Thursday, Decoration day, Night prices—10c, lic, %¢ and 23 Matinee—lue and 20c.” All seats reserved. Miaga's Trocadore. - 1z and 200, Entire k. Including Saturday Ev CiAre You u B Extra Tueseday ¢ ern-Herera Hgh wday, June 2, mi al's an entng received b Ine ris of Mc Special wire, and evening, Ro from Bouth teurs. Rosenthal himself in ¢ ama- Iginal stunt, BASE BALL Colorado Springs vs. Omaha May 27.u8, dw, 15th an Game Called #i45 p, m, '