It is not intended to intimate that the cases of United States v. Rice and Fleming v. Page are not harmonious. In fact, they are perfectly consistent with each other. In the first case it was merely held that duties could not be collected upon goods brought into a domestic port during a temporary occupation by the enemy, though the enemy subsequently evacuated it; in the latter case, that the temporary military occupation by the United States of a foreign port did not make it a domestic port, and that goods imported into the United States from that port were still subject to duty. It would have been obviously unjust in the Rice Case to impose a duty upon goods which might already have paid a duty to the British commander. It would have been equally unjust in the Fleming Case to exempt the goods from duty by reason of our temporary occupation of the port without a formal cession of such port to the United States.
The next case is that of Cross v. Harrison, 16 How. 164, 14 L. ed. 889. This was an action of assumpsit to recover back moneys paid to Harrison while acting as collector at the port of San Francisco, for tonnage and duties upon merchandise imported from foreign countries into California between February 2, 1848,-- the date of the treaty of peace between the United States and Mexico,-- and November 13, 1849, when the collector appointed by the President (according to an act of Congress passed March 3, 1849) entered upon his duties. Plaintiffs insisted that, until such collector had been appointed, California was and continued to be after the date of the treaty a foreign territory, and hence that no duties were payable as upon an importation into the United States. The plaintiffs proceeded upon the theory, stated in the dictum in Fleming v. Page, that duties had never been held to accrue to the United States in her newly acquired territories until provision was made by act of Congress for their collection, and that the revenue laws had always been held to speak only as to the United States and its territories existing at the time when the several acts were passed. The collector had [182 U.S. 1, 185] been appointed by the military governor of California, and duties were assessed, after the treaty, according to the United States tariff act of 1846. In holding that these duties were properly assessed, Mr. Justice Wayne cited with apparent approval a dispatch written by Mr. Buchanan, then Secretary of State, and a circular letter issued by the Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Robert J. Walker, holding that from the necessities of the case the military government established in California did not cease to exist with the treaty of peace, but continued as a government de facto until Congress should provide a territorial government. 'The great law of necessity,' says Mr. Buchanan, 'justifies this conclusion. The consent of the people is irresistibly inferred from the fact that no civilized community could possibly desire to abrogate an existing government, when the alternative presented would be to place themselves in a state of anarchy, beyond the protection of all laws, and reduce them to the unhappy necessity of submitting to the dominion of the strongest.' These letters will be alluded to hereafter in treating of the action of the executive departments.
The court further held in this case that, 'after the ratification of the treaty, California became a part of the United States, or a ceded, conquered, territory;' that, '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;' that (p. 193, L. ed. 901) 'the territory had been ceded as a conquest, and was to be preserved and governed as such until the sovereignty to which it had passed had legislated for it. That sovereignty was the United States, under the Constitution, by which power had been given to Congress to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States. . . . That the civil government of California, organized as it was from a right of conquest, did not cease or become defunct in consequence of the signature of the treaty, or from its ratification, . . . and that, until Congress legislated for it, the duty upon foreign goods imported into San Francisco were legally demanded and lawfully received by Mr. Harrison.' [182 U.S. 1, 186] To the objection that no collection districts had been established in California, and in apparent dissent from the views of the Chief Justice in Fleming v. Page, he added (p. 196, L. ed. 902): 'It was urged that our revenue laws covered only so much of the territory of the United States as had been divided into collection districts, and that out of them no authority had been given to prevent the landing of foreign goods or to charge duties upon them, though such landing had been made within the territorial limits of the United States. To this it may be successfully replied that collection districts and ports of entry are no more than designated localities within and at which Congress had extended a liberty of commerce in the United States, and that so much of its territory as was not within any collection district must be considered as having been withheld from that liberty. It is very well understood to be a part of the laws of nations that each nation may designate, upon its own terms, the ports and places within its territory for foreign commerce, and that any attempt to introduce foreign goods elsewhere, within its jurisdiction, is a violation of its sovereignty: It is not necessary that such should be declared in terms, or by any decree or enactment, the expressed allowances being the limit of the liberty given to foreigners to trade with such nation.'
The court also cited the cases of Louisiana and Florida, and seemed to take an entirely different view of the facts connected with the admission of those territories from what had been taken in Fleming v. Page. The opinion, which is quite a long one, establishes the three following propositions: (1) That under the war power the military governor of California was authorized to prescribe a scale of duties upon importations from foreign counties to San Francisco, and to collect the same through a collector appointed by himself, until the ratification of the treaty of peace. (2) That after such ratification duties were legally exacted under the tariff laws of the United States, which took effect immediately. (3) That the civil government established in California continued, from the necessities of the case, until Congress provided a territorial government.
It will be seen that the three propositions involve a recognition of the fact that California became domestic territory [182 U.S. 1, 187] immediately upon the ratification of the treaty, or, to speak more accurately, as soon as this was officially known in California. The doctrine that a port ceded to and occupied by us does not lose its foreign character until Congress has acted and a collector is appointed was distinctly repudiated with the apparent acquiescence of Chief Justice Taney, who wrote the opinion in Fleming v. Page, and still remained the Chief Justice of the Court. The opinion does not involve directly the question at issue in this case: whether goods carried from a port in a ceded territory directly to New York are subject to duties, since the duties in Cross v. Harrison were exacted upon foreign goods imported into San Francisco as an American port; but it is impossible to escape the logical inference from that case that goods carried from San Francisco to New York after the ratification of the treaty would not be considered as imported from a foreign country.
The practice and rulings of the executive departments with respect to the status of newly acquired territories, prior to such status being settled by acts of Congress, is, with a single exception, strictly in line with the decision of this court in Cross v. Harrison, 16 How. 164, 14 L. ed. 889. The only possessions in connection with which the question has arisen are Louisiana, Florida, Texas, California, and Alaska. We take these up in their order.
By article 2, 2, of the Constitution, the President is given power, 'by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the senators present concur;' and by article 6, 'this Constitution and the laws [182 U.S. 1, 195] of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land.' It will be observed that no distinction is made as to the question of supremacy between laws and treaties, except that both are controlled by the Constitution. A law requires the assent of both houses of Congress, and, except in certain specified cases, the signature of the President. A treaty is negotiated and made by the President, with the concurrence of two thirds of the senators present, but each of them is the supreme law of the land.
As was said by Chief Justice Marshall in United States v. The Peggy, 1 Cranch, 103, 110, 2 L. ed. 49, 51: 'Where a treaty is the law of the land, and as such affects the rights of parties litigating in court, that treaty as much binds those rights, and is as much to be regarded by the court, as an act of Congress.' And in Foster v. Neilson, 2 Pet. 253, 314, 7 L. ed. 415, 435, he repeated this in substance: 'Our Constitution declares a treaty to be the law of the land. It is, consequently, to be regarded in courts of justice as equivalent to an act of the legislature, whenever it operates of itself without the aid of any legislative provision.' So in Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U.S. 190 , 31 L. ed. 386, 8 Sup. Ct. Rep. 456: 'By the Constitution a treaty is placed on the same footing, and made of like obligation, with an act of legislation. Both are declared by that instrument to be the supreme law of the land, and no superior efficacy is given to either over the other. When the two relate to the same subject the courts will always endeavor to construe them so as to give effect to both, if that can be done without violating the language of either; but if the two are inconsistent, the one last in date will control the other, provided always that the stipulation of the treaty on the subject is self-executing.' To the same effect are the Cherokee Tobacco, 11 Wall. 616, sub nom. 207 Half Pound Papers Smoking Tobacco v. United States, 20 L. ed. 227, and the Head Money Cases, 112 U.S. 580 , sub nom. Edye v. Robertson, 28 L. ed. 798, 5 Sup. Ct. Rep. 247.
One of the ordinary incidents of a treaty is the cession of territory. It is not too much to say it is the rule, rather than the exception, that a treaty of peace, following upon a war, provides for a cession of territory to the victorious party. It was said by Chief Justice Marshall in American Ins. Co. v. 356 Bales of Cotton, 1 Pet. 511, 542, 7 L. ed. 242, 255; 'The Constitution confers absolutely upon the government [182 U.S. 1, 196] of the Union the powers of making war and of making treaties; consequently that government possesses the power of acquiring territory, either by conquest or by treaty.' The territory thus acquired is acquired as absolutely as if the annexation were made, as in the case of Texas and Hawaii, by an act of Congress.
It follows from this that by the ratification of the treaty of Paris the island became territory of the United States, although not an organized territory in the technical sense of the word.
But whatever be the source of this power, its uninterrupted exercise by Congress for a century, and the repeated declarations of this court, have settled the law that the right to acquire territory involves the right to govern and dispose of it. That was stated by Chief Justice Taney in the Dred Scott Case.
In the more recent case of National Bank v. Yankton County, 101 U.S. 129 , 25 L. ed. 1046, it was said by Mr. Chief Justice Waite that Congress 'has full and complete legislative authority over the people of the territories and all the departments of the territorial governments. It may do for the territories what the people, under the Constitution of the United States, may do for the states.' Indeed, it is scarcely too much to say that there has not been a session of Congress since the territory of Louisiana was purchased, that that body has not enacted legislation based upon the assumed authority to govern and control the territories. It is an authority which arises, not necessarily from the territorial clause of the Constitution, but from the necessities of the case, and from the inability of the states to act upon the [182 U.S. 1, 197] subject. Under this power Congress may deal with territory acquired by treaty; may administer its government as it does that of the District of Columbia; it may organize a local territorial government; it may admit it as a state upon an equality with other states; it may sell its public lands to individual citizens, or may donate them as homesteads to actual settlers. In short, when once acquired by treaty, it belongs to the United States, and is subject to the disposition of Congress.
We are therefore of opinion that at the time these duties were levied Porto Rico was not a foreign country within the meaning of the tariff laws, [Note #1] but a territory of the United States, that the duties were illegally exacted, and that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover them back.
(Note #1: Four Justices dissented from the majority opinion in DeLima v. Bidwell, primarily based on the distinction of "unincorporated" vs. "incorporated" territory, as explained in the Downes v. Bidwell ruling. In later years, this recognition of any "unincorporated territory" as "foreign," unless otherwise delineated by specific acts of Congress, has come to be the prevailing interpretation.)
Reference for the Taiwan status issue:Quote
In Neely v. Henkel, we learn that the Cuba cession was foreign territory with its sovereignty held in trust by the United States Military Government. Categorically, it is not a dependent territory of the USA like Puerto Rico but both were under administrative authority of peace treaty. The Cuba cession was treated as a separate foreign entity within the treaty-making powers but Puerto Rico was not able to conduct its own foreign trade affairs despite also being categorically a separate custom territory.
Cuba is none the less foreign territory, within the meaning of the act of Congress, because it is under a military governor appointed by and representing the President in the work of assisting the inhabitants of that island to establish a government of their own, under which, as a free and independent people, they may control their own affairs without interference by other nations. The occupancy of the island by troops of the United States was the necessary result of the war. That result could not have been avoided by the United States consistently with the principles of international law or with its obligations to the people of Cuba.
It is true that as between Spain and the United States -- indeed, as between the United States and all foreign nations-Cuba, upon the cessation of hostilities with Spain and after the treaty of Paris, was to be treated as if it were conquered territory. But as between the United States and Cuba that island is territory held in trust for the inhabitants of Cuba, to whom it rightfully belongs, and to whose exclusive control it will be surrendered when a stable government shall have been established by their voluntary action.
In his message to Congress of December 6th, 1898, the President said that, 'as soon as we are in possession of Cuba and have pacified the island, it will be necessary to give aid and direction to its people to form a government for themselves,' and that, 'until there is complete tranquility in the island and a stable government inaugurated, military occupation will be continued.' Nothing in the treaty of Paris stands in the way of this declared object, and nothing existed, at the date of the passage of the act of June 6th, 1900, [Note #2] indicating any change in the policy of our government as defined in the joint resolution of April 20th, 1898. [Note #3] In reference to the declaration, in that resolution, of the purposes of the United States in relation to Cuba, the President in his annual message of December 5th, 1899, said that the pledge contained in it 'is of the highest honorable obligation, and must be sacredly kept.' Indeed, the treaty of Paris contemplated only a temporary occupancy and [180 U.S. 109, 121] control of Cuba by the United States. While it was taken for granted by the treaty that, upon the evacuation by Spain, the island would be occupied by the United States, the treaty provided that, 'so long as such occupation shall last,' the United States should 'assume and discharge the obligations that may, under international law, result from the fact of its occupation for the protection of life and property.' It further provided that any obligations assumed by the United States, under the treaty, with respect to Cuba, were 'limited to the time of its occupancy thereof,' but that the United States, upon the termination of such occupancy, should 'advise any government established in the island to assume the same obligations.'
Source: Neely v. Henkel, (1901)
(Note #2: This refers to Article 5270 of the Revised Statutes of the United States regarding extradition between the government of the United States and any foreign government, as amended by Congress June 6th, 1900.)
(Note #3: On the 20th day of April, 1898, Congress passed a joint resolution, the preamble of which recited that the abhorrent conditions existing for more than three years in the island of Cuba, so near our own borders, had shocked the moral sense of the people of the United States, had been a disgrace to civilization, and demanding that Spain at once relinquish its authority and government in the island of Cuba and withdraw its land and naval forces from Cuba and Cuban waters. In the following days, the Congress passed a formal declaration of war against the Kingdom of Spain.)
Reference for the Taiwan status issue:Quote
The attempts to establish a Cuban republic were null as the dominion of the USA had not been terminated in the April 11, 1899 Treaty of Paris. Upon cession, American dominion by US Military Government was dejurely established. The status condition is reminiscent of a self-governing dominion in that the Cuba cession was defacto independent but not dejure. Both dependent territory and self-governing dominion are a colonial status, but the self-governing dominion is not bound within the sphere of the treaty-making powers and foreign affairs powers of the USA. These are handled separately by a High Commissioner or other delegated official of administrative authority over the foreign territory. The USA was still a supreme authority over Cuban territory.
It cannot be doubted that when the United States enforced the relinquishment by Spain of her sovereignty in Cuba, and determined to occupy and control that island until there was complete tranquility in all its borders and until the people of Cuba had created for themselves a stable government, it succeeded to the authority of the displaced government so far at least that it became its duty, under international law and pending the pacification of the island, to protect in all appropriate legal modes the lives, the liberty, and the property of all those who submitted to the authority of the representatives of this country.
Source: Neely v. Henkel, (1901)
Reference for the Taiwan status issue:Quote
Examining the prevailing interpretation in Downes v. Bidwell, it is clear that a cession treated as foreign territory under US dominion has self-governing dominion issues of treaty-making powers which are handled separately by the foreign territory itself. For example, the WTO membership status for the foreign territory like Taiwan cession is a good start, and is in complete alignment with this principle.
This separate customs territory of SFPT cession is not a status of an independent country. The separate WTO trade status would be expected to be most commonly seen in regard to US possessions, trust territories, or any self-governing dominions. The foreign territory of Taiwan cession is treated as separate customs territory, or a foreign state equivalent, but it is still a sub-sovereign by facts of cession.
The Taiwan cession is held under the benign dominion of the US Military Government in SFPT. As a condition of having its sovereignty held in trust, it is a Taiwan Relations Act (TRA) status equivalency of a trust territory in Article 3 of SFPT. The notion of Taiwan being annexed or politically part of the PRC was flat out rejected by Senator Helms' legislation on WTO ascension of Taiwan.
(2) the United States should be prepared to aggressively counter any effort by any WTO member, upon the approval of the General Council of the WTO of the terms and conditions of the accession of the People's Republic of China to the WTO, to block the accession of Taiwan to the WTO.
Source: Accession of Taiwan to the World Trade Organization, Public Law 106-286, Enacted 10 October 2000