SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES. October term, 1900. No. 502. HENRY W. DOOLEY, LOUIS G. SMITH, AND CHARLES W. OGDEN, TRADING AS COPARTNERS UNDER THE FIRM NAME OF DOOLEY, SMITH & COMPANY, PLAINTIFFS IN ERROR, VS. THE UNITED STATES. IN ERROR TO THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. Circuit Court of the United States, Southern District of New York. HENRY W. DOOLEY, LOUIS G. SMITH, and CHARLES W. Ogden, Trading as Copartners under the Firm Name of Dooley, Smith & Company, Action No. 2. And now come Henry W. Dooley, Louis G. Smith, and Charles W. Ogden, trading as copartners under the firm name of Dooley, Smith & Company, and conceiving themselves aggrieved by the judgment entered herein on the 30th day of November, 1900, do hereby pray that a writ of error be allowed from the said judgment, returnable to the Supreme Court of the United States, and that a transcript of the record and proceedings and papers upon which said judgment was made, duly authenticated, may be sent to the Supreme Court of the United States. And they present herewith their assignment of errors. HENRY M. WARD, Attorney for Plaintiffs in Error, And now, to wit, on the 4th day of December, 1900, it is- E. H. LACOMBE, United States Circuit Judge. (Endorsed:) Circuit court of the United States, southern district of New York. Dooley, Smith & Co. vs. United States. Action No. 2. Petition for writ of error. Henry M. Ward, attorney for petitioners; office and post-office address, No. 45 William street, borough of Manhattan, city of New York. U. S. circuit court. Filed Dec. 4, 1900. John A. Shields, clerk, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 88: The President of the United States of America to the judges of the circuit court of the United States for the southern district of New York, Greeting: Because in the record and proceedings, as also in the rendition of the judgment of a plea which is in the said circuit court, before you or some of you, between Henry W. Dooley, Louis G. Smith, and Charles W. Ogden, trading as copartners under the firm name of Dooley, Smith & Company, and The United States of America, a manifest error hath happened, to the great damage of the said Dooley, Smith & Company, as is said and appears by their complaint, we, being willing that such error, if any hath been, should be duly corrected and full and speedy justice done to the parties aforesaid in this behalf, do command you, if judgment be therein given, that then, under your seal, distinctly and openly, you send the record and proceedings aforesaid, with all things concerning the same, to the justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, at the Capitol, in the city of Washington, together with this writ, so that you have the same at the said place, before the justices aforesaid, on or before the 28th day of December, 1900, that, the record and proceedings aforesaid being inspected, the said justices of the Supreme Court may cause further to be done therein to correct that error what of right and according to the law and custom of the United States ought to be done. Witness the Honorable Melville W. Fuller, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, this 4th day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred, and of the Independence of the United States the one hundred and twenty-fifth. [Seal of U. S. Circuit Court, South. Dist. New York.] JOHN A. SHIELDS, Clerk of the Circuit Court of the United States The foregoing writ is hereby allowed. E. H. LACOMBE, -188-. [Endorsed:] E. & A. B. 1828. Supreme Court of the United States. Dooley, Smith & Co., plaintiff in error, vs. United States, defendant in error. Action No. 2. Writ of error. Henry M. Ward, attor ney for plaintiff in error. Due service of a copy of the within writ of error is hereby admitted this day of attorney for defendant in error. A copy of the within paper has been this day received at this office. Dec. 5, 1900. Henry L. Burnett, U. S. attorney. U. S. circuit court. Filed Dec. 5, 1900. John A. Shields, clerk. P. 1.45 chg. I, John A. Shields, clerk of the circuit court of the United States of America for the southern district of New York, in the second circuit, by virtue of the foregoing writ of error and in obedience thereto, do hereby certify that the following pages, numbered from five to 28, inclusive, contain a true and complete transcript of the record and proceedings had in said court in the cause of Henry W. Dooley, Louis G. Smith, and Charles W. Ogden, trading as copartners under the firm name of Dooley, Smith & Company, plaintiff- in error, against The United States of America, defendant in error, action No. 2, as the same remain of record and on file in said office. In testimony whereof I have caused the seal of the said court to be hereunto affixed, at the city of New York, in the southern district of New York, in the second circuit, this 7th day of December, in the year of our Lord one thousand nine hundred, and of the Independence of the United States the one hundred and twenty-fifth. [Seal of U. S. Circuit Court, South. Dist. New York.] [Ten-cent U. S. internal-revenue stamp, canceled Dec. 7, 1900.] JOHN A. SHIELDS, Clerk. In the Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. HENRY W. DOOLEY, LOUIS G. SMITH,) and Charles W. Ogden, Trading as Copartners under the Firm Name of Action No. 2. Petition and Dooley, Smith & Company, against THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Complaint. Henry W. Dooley, Louis G. Smith and Charles W. Ogden bring this their petition and complaint against the United States, and respectfully show to the court as follows: I. That at all the times hereinafter mentioned the plaintiffs were and they now are citizens of the United States of America and of the State of New York, in which State they have resided for the greater part of their lives and now reside, and the plaintiffs Louis G. Smith and Charles W. Ogden are inhabitants of the southern district of New York, residing in the borough of Manhattan, city of New York, within the southern district of New York. II. That at the times hereinafter mentioned the plaintiffs were and they now are trading and doing business as copartners under the firm name and style of Dooley, Smith & Company, and that they then had and now have an office for the general transaction of their business at No. 95 Liberty street, in the borough of Manhattan, city of New York, southern district of New York, and that they then had and now have another office for the general transaction of their business in the city of San Juan, in the island of Porto Rico. III. That the business in which the plaintiffs were engaged at the times hereinafter mentioned, and in which they are now engaged, is that of general commission merchants and exporters of goods from the United States, at the port of New York, in the State of New York, into the island of Porto Rico, at the Port of San Juan and the other ports of entry designated by the United States in said island, and importers of goods from the island of Porto Rico and the port of San Juan and other ports in said island to the port of New York, in the State of New York. IV. That prior to the twelfth day of August, 1898, a state of war existed between the Kingdom of Spain and the United States of H. Doc. 509- -54 America, and prior to said date the said island of Porto Rico belonged to the Kingdom of Spain as a colonial possession thereof, and had been for a long time prior to said date under the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Spain, which had there established a civil government with the proper civil and municipal authorities, and the said government had enacted, among other laws, certain tariff or customs duties upon imports into the island of Porto Rico from the United States and other countries, and such Spanish or Porto Rican tariff or customs laws were in force at the time of the seizure and occupation of the said island by the military and naval forces of the United States in the month of July, 1898. V. That on the twelfth day of August, 1898, a protocol, providing for a treaty of peace between the Kingdom of Spain and the United States of America was duly signed by the representatives of both governments, and thereafter and on the tenth day of December, 1898, the treaty of peace was entered into and duly signed by the duly authorized representatives of both governments, and thereafter and on the sixth day of February, 1899, the said treaty was duly ratified by the Senate of the United States of America and was thereafter ratified by the Queen Regent of Spain on the nineteenth day of March, 1899, and by the Spanish cortes, and said treaty was finally ratified by both governments, and ratifications thereof exchanged at the city of Washington in the District of Columbia on the eleventh day of April, 1899, and on the same day proclaimed by the President of the United States of America. VI. That prior to the signing of the said protocol and in the month of July, 1898, after the first landing of the military forces of the United States upon the said island of Porto Rico, there were a few skirmishes between the United States forces and the Spanish forces stationed on said island, but that all hostilities of every kind ceased from and after the 12th day of August, 1898, the date of the signing of the protocol as aforesaid, and from that date down to the present time there have been no hostilities of any kind upon said island and no military operations of any kind have been conducted by the United States forces against the Spanish forces or against any other hostile forces on said island, but that immediately upon the signing of said protocol and as therein provided the said island was abandoned by Spain and her possession and sovereignty thereof relinquished, and all the Spanish forces were immediately withdrawn and the said island was evacuated and all public property on said island was delivered to and taken possession of by the United States, and said island has ever since been and now is in the peaceful and undisputed possession and under the sovereignty of the United States of America. VII. That on the first day of May, 1900, the act of Congress of April 12th, 1900, entitled "An act temporarily to provide revenues and a civil government for Porto Rico, and for other purposes," went into effect, and that in and by said act of Congress it is provided among other things, that "all merchandise coming into Porto Rico from the United States shall be entered at the several ports of entry upon payment of fifteen per centum of the duties which are required to be levied, collected and paid upon like articles of merchandise imported from foreign countries" into the United States under the existing tariff, established by the act of Congress of July 24th, 1897, commonly known as the Dingley tariff law. VIII. That the plaintiff, Henry W. Dooley, in behalf of his co partners and as a member of said firm, being as aforesaid a citizen of the United States and of the State of New York, went to the city of San Juan, in the island of Porto Rico, in the early part of 1899 and prior to May 1st, 1900, and has remained there in connection with the business of said firm until the present time. That since the first day of May, 1900, the plaintiffs, Dooley, Smith & Company have exported from the port of New York, in the State of New York, to the plaintiff, Henry W. Dooley, as their agent in the port of San Juan, Porto Rico, aforesaid, certain goods, wares and merchandise, and the said Henry W. Dooley, or his agent, has been compelled by the customs officers of the United States at San Juan to pay certain sums of money as duties under said act in order to enter such merchandise at that port. That said sums of money assessed as duties as aforesaid by the United States customs officers under the alleged authority of said act of Con gress have been paid by the plaintiff Henry W. Dooley, or by his agent, in behalf of the plaintiffs, but under protest and by compulsion of the United States customs officers, and in order to enable the plaintiffs to obtain such merchandise from the custody of the United States. IX. That the amount of money so collected by compulsion of the United States customs officers, as duties assessed upon the plaintiffs' merchandise at San Juan, Porto Rico, and paid by the plaintiffs or their agent, under protest as aforesaid, from May 1st, 1900, to October 23d, 1900, is fourteen hundred and thirty-three dollars and eleven cents ($1,433.11), which sum of money is now held by the United States of America. X. The plaintiffs further allege that, as they are informed by counsel, the imposition and collection of the duties aforesaid are in violation of the rights and privileges secured to the plaintiffs as citizens of the United States and of the State of New York, under the Constitution of the United States of America, and that the said act of Congress of April 12th, 1900, in so far as it attempts to impose any tax or duties upon imports from any port of the United States into the island of Porto Rico is unconstitutional and void, and that said sums of money were illegally and wrongfully collected." XI. And the plaintiffs further allege that no part of the said duties paid under protest as aforesaid has ever been repaid to them by the United States, although payment thereof has been demanded. And by reason of the facts aforesaid, the sum of $1,433.11 is now due and owing to the plaintiffs from the United States. Wherefore plaintiffs demand judgment against the United States for the sum of fourteen hundred and thirty-three and dollars ($1,433.11), with interest and costs. STATE OF NEW YORK, 100 HENRY M. WARD, No. 45 William Street, New York City. JOHN G. CARLISLE, JOSEPH LAROCQUE, JR., Counsel. Southern District of New York, County of New York, ss: Louis G. Smith, being duly sworn, deposes and says: I am one of the plaintiffs above named; that I have read the foregoing petition and complaint, and the same is true of my own knowledge, except as to |