S. 145 (January, 1913), it was held that the Safety Appliance Act, 32 Stat. 943 (Mar. 2, 1903), which provides that Safety Appliance Acts "shall apply to common carriers by railroads in the territories and the District of Columbia," is in force in Porto Rico under the Foraker Act of April 12, 1900, which provides that all laws of the United States not locally inapplicable shall apply to Porto Rico. It was held that Porto Rico's organization was in most essentials that of a territory.

The Supreme Court of the United States again held in People of Porto Rico v. Rosaly y Castillo, 227 U. S. 270 (Feb. 24, 1913), a case involving suit against the government of Porto Rico, that Porto Rico was a territory and could not be sued.

It has been claimed that the Circuit Court of Appeals held in People of P. R. v. Am. R. R. Co. of P. R., 254 Fed. 369 (Dec. 4, 1918) that the Interstate Commerce Act did not apply to Porto Rico. But what the Court decided in that case was that Porto Rican law applies in case of local tariffs of the intraisland railroads of Porto Rico, and not the Interstate Commerce Commission Act. This would be true in any state of the United States. This case is easily distinguishable from Benedicto v. West India & Pan. Tel. Co., 256 Fed. 417, 420 (Mar. 19, 1919), in which it was held that cable rates in Porto Rico were subject to the power of the Federal Interstate Commerce Commission and not within the jurisdiction of Porto Rican law any more than they would be within the jurisdiction of any state law.

In Peck S. S. Co. v. N. Y. & P. R. S. S. Co., discussed above (page 188), it was decided that the Sherman Anti-trust Act was in force in Porto Rico.2 Again in Pedro Pastor v. N. Y. & P. R. S. S. Co., 3 P. R. Fed. 95 (June 1, 1907), it was held that the Sherman Anti-trust Act was applicable to Porto Rico

1In Am. R. R. Co. v. Birch, 224 U. S. 547 (May 13, 1912), the Employers' Liability Act was held to be in force in Porto Rico, but that act is in force in all possessions of the United States, so the question as to whether Porto Rico is a territory was not at issue.

2Cited as authority in Elkins v. P. R., 5 P. R. Fed. 103 (Sept. 7, 1909).

and could be enforced by the District Court of the United States for Porto Rico.1

In Elkins v. Porto Rico, 5 P. R. Fed. 103 (Sept. 7, 1909), a suit against Porto Rico, it was claimed by the government that a territory could not be sued, but was sovereign. The government was upheld. The court said that Porto Rico was to all intents and purposes a territory of the United States, although "not a territory incorporated into the United States."2

In 23 Op. Atty. Genl. 637,3 involving a question of what is meant by "domiciled in the United States" under the trade-mark act, it was said that Porto Rico is an organized territory of the United States and that the people of Porto Rico are entitled to register trade-marks in the United States.

Porto Rico a "Territory" Within Meaning of Webb Law.

In the many decisions of the Supreme Court of the United' States, and other federal courts, including the Porto Rican Federal Court, etc., Porto Rico has been held to be "unincorporated territory," "a completely organized territory" and "sufficiently a territory to come within the terms of Sec. 3 of the anti-trust act.” In no case has it been held that it is not a “territory.” Since the Webb-Pomerene Law uses the term "territory," as does the Sherman Anti-trust Act, to which the Webb-Pomerene Law is an amendment, and the Sherman Anti-trust Act has been held by the Porto Rican Federal Court to apply to Porto Rico, it would seem that Porto Rico is sufficiently a "territory" to come within the terms of the Webb-Pomerene Law, and that export associations may be formed in Porto Rico to export goods to foreign countries. But export associations may not ship goods to Porto Rico, since Porto Rico is not a foreign country.

1Upholding Peck S. S. Line v. N. Y. & P. R. S. S. Co., 2 P. R. Fed. 109 (1906).

2The court cites Peck S. S. Line v. N. Y. & P. R. S. S. Co., op. cit., and Kovel v. Bingham (see page 191) as authority.

Also discussed on p. 195.

Philippine Islands

Philippine "Insular Case."

In the one Philippine Insular Case, Fourteen Diamond Rings v. United States, 183 U. S. 176 (Dec., 1901), the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Philippine Islands were not a foreign nations, and the court designates the Philippine Islands as "territory of the United States."2

Philippine Islands are "Territory" of the United States.

In Dorr v. U. S., 195 U. S. 138 (May 31, 1904), a case involving trial by jury in the Philippine Islands, Mr. Justice Day in his opinion held:

"Limitations which are to be applied to any given case involving territorial government may depend upon the relation of the particular territory to the United States, concerning which Congress is exercising the power conferred by the Constitution. That the United States may have territory, which is not incorporated into the United States as a body politic, we think was recognized by the framers of the Constitution in enacting the article already considered, giving power over the territories, and is sanctioned by the opinions of the Justices agreeing in the judgment in Downes v. Bidwell. Until Congress shall see fit to incorporate territory, ceded by treaty into the United States, we regard it as settled by that decision that the territory is to be governed under the power existing in Congress to make laws for such territories and subject to such constitutional restrictions upon the powers of that body as are applicable to the Constitution.

Mr. Justice Day includes the Philippine Islands in the term "territories," but holds that they are not an "incorporated territory" to which all the laws of the United States not locally inapplicable shall apply.

1See also Faber v. U. S., 221 U. S. 649 (May 29, 1911).

2See also Lincoln v. U. S., 197 U. S. 419 (1904); Kepner v. U. S., 195 U. S. 100 (1904); Mendezona v. U. S., 195 U. S. 158 (1904); Faber v. U. S., 221 U. S. 649 (1911); U. S. v. United Cigar Stores Co., 1 Crt. Cust. App. 450 (April 10, 1911).

In the opinions of the Attorney General of the United States, 23 Op. Atty. Gen. 635, it is said that the Philippine Islands are not "completely organized territories," within the provisions of the trade-mark laws, but this opinion was rendered before the Philippine Islands were formally ceded to the United States by Spain. In 25 Op. Atty. Gen. 179 (July 6, 1904), it is held that the copyright laws do not apply to the Philippine Islands, but the Attorney General bases his opinion on that of his predecessor and his whole opinion is so mixed up and illogical that it would not seem to have much weight as authority.

In a more recent and better opinion of the Attorney General, 30 Op. Atty. Gen. 462 (Oct. 28, 1915), it is held that:

"While, like Porto Rico, the Philippine Islands are not incorporated into the United States, they clearly are territory of the United States, and to the extent that Congress has assumed to legislate for them, they have been granted a form of territorial government, and to this extent are a territory. Though their form of government is not identical with that of Porto Rico, the reasoning of the opinions in the cases supra holding that, for certain purposes, Porto Rico is to be deemed a territory, as that word is used in various Federal statutes, is clearly applicable to the Philippine Islands. R. S. Sec. 5546, draws no distinction between an organized' or 'unorganized,' 'incorporated' or 'unincorporated' territory. Considering the purpose for which it was enacted and the convenience of administration of the present laws which it was intended to promote, I see no reason why the term 'territory' should not be given a broad construction in order to effectuate the evident needs of the statute."

Presumably Webb Law Not Applicable to Philippine Islands.

As far as the Webb-Pomerene Law and the Sherman Antitrust Law are concerned the Philippine Islands are as much a "territory" as Porto Rico, and as stated above, the courts have held that the Sherman Anti-trust Law is in force in Porto Rico. But, let us examine the Philippine Act of August 29, 1916, ch. 416, Sec. 5 of which expressly provides that:

"The statutory laws of the United States, hereafter enacted shall not apply to the Philippine Islands, except when

!

ever so specifically provided, or it is so provided in this Act,” and Sec. 10 of which provides:

"While this Act provides that the Philippine government shall have the authority to enact a tariff, the trade relations between the Islands and the United States shall continue to be governed exclusively by the Congress of the United States."

Does the Webb-Pomerene Law specifically provide that it shall apply to the Philippine Islands, in compliance with Section 5 of the Philippine Act? Not unless this is done by use of the word "territory." It is extremely doubtful whether any court would hold that by using the term "territory," the Webb-Pomerene Law is made to apply specifically to the Philippine Islands.

It would seem, therefore, that the Philippine Islands do not come within the terms of the Webb-Pomerene Law in any way -that associations may not export goods from the mainland to the Philippine Islands, and that associations may not be formed in the Philippine Islands to export to foreign countries.

The Panama Canal Zone

Canal Zone "A Part of the United States."

The Panama Canal Zone is a part of the United States1 to which Webb Law associations may not export goods. It was contended in Wilson v. Shaw, 204 U. S. 24 (Jan. 7, 1907), that the Canal Zone was not "a part of the United States," but Justice Brewer in his opinion held:

"It is hypercritical to contend that the title of the United States is imperfect, and that the territory described does not belong to this nation, because of the omission of some of the technical terms used in ordinary conveyances of real estate."

The fact that the United States treats the Canal Zone as a foreign country in matters of tariff, etc., is beside the question. We have discussed this matter at length on pages 190 to 191

1Treaty between the United States and the Republic of Panama, Feb. 18, 1903 (33 Stat. 2234).

2See David Kaufman & Sons Co. v. Smith, 175 Fed. 887 (Jan. 13, 1909).