221 U. S.

Argument for the United States.

ample provision therein for denouncing the same, and until that time it should be carried out according to its terms.

Mr. D. Frank Lloyd, Assistant Attorney General, and Mr. Charles E. McNabb, for the United States:

The Philippine Islands are neither a "foreign country" nor an "other country," within the meaning of the Cuban convention.

For definitions of "foreign country" see The Ship Adventure, 1 Brock. 235, 241; Fed. Cas. 202, 204; The Boat Eliza, 2 Gall. 4; 8 Fed. Cas. 455, 456; Taber v. United States, 1 Story, 1; 23 Fed. Cas. 611, 613, 614.

Upon ratification of the treaty of peace with Spain the Philippines and other islands therein ceded to the United States ceased to be foreign and became territory of the United States subject to such tariff legislation as Congress might deem proper. Insular Cases in Vol. 182 U. S. Reports; Fourteen Diamond Rings v. United States, 183 U. S. 176, 178, 179, 181, 182; United States v. Heinszen, 206 U. S. 370, 379, 380.

The words "foreign country" appear only in § 28 of the Customs Administrative Act of June 10, 1890. The word "country" without the adjective "foreign" appears in §§ 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 10 and 19. There can be no doubt whatever that foreign country is invariably meant by the word "country," because the Customs Administrative Act relates only to merchandise imported from foreign countries. See United States v. The Recorder, 1 Blatchf. 218; 27 Fed. Cas. 718, 720, 721; Stairs v. Peaslee, 18 How. 521, 526.

The term "country" as used in the law is to be regarded as embracing all the possessions of a nation, however widely separated, which are subject to the same supreme executive and legislative authority and control. (Cust. Reg. 1857, art. 300; Cust. Reg. 1874, art. 432;

Argument for the United States.

221 U. S.

Cust. Reg. 1884, art. 499; Cust. Reg. 1892, art. 835; Cust. Reg. 1899, art. 1254; Cust. Reg. 1908, art. 873.)

The legal effect of contemporaneous and long-continued construction and practice of the executive department charged with the administration of the law has been repeatedly declared by the courts. United States v. The Recorder, and Stairs v. Peaslee, supra, are in point. For recent decisions of this court, sustaining such construction and practice, see: United States v. Falk, 204 U. S. 143, 152; United States v. Cerecedo, 209 U. S. 337, 339; Komada v. United States, 215 U. S. 392, 396.

The words "other countries" appearing in Art. VIII of the Cuban convention, supra, are inapplicable to the Philippine Islands, as is shown by the context and the purpose.

Article VIII declares that the concession made in said convention shall be "preferential in respect to all like imports from other countries." The words "imports from other countries" do not refer to goods coming into the United States from the Philippine Islands. "Import," "imports," "imported," and "importation" are used in the customs laws to refer only to merchandise brought into the United States from a foreign country the same as the correlative terms "export,' " "exports," "exported," and "exportation" are applied to merchandise carried out of the United States to a foreign country. Woodruff v. Parham, 8 Wall. 123, 131 et seq.; Brown v. Houston, 114 U. S. 622, 628 et seq.; Fairbank v. United States, 181 U. S. 283, 294; De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 1, 176; Dooley v. United States, 183 U. S. 151, 154, 155.

A thing may be within the letter of the statute and yet not within the statute because not within its spirit nor within the intention of its makers. Holy Trinity Church v. United States, 143 U. S. 457, 463; Jones v. Guaranty &c. Co., 101 U. S. 622, 626; Smythe v. Fiske, 23 Wall. 374, 380; United States v. Babbit, 1 Black, 55, 61; Raymond v.

Thomas, 91 U. S. 712, 715; Indianapolis &c. R. Co. v. Horst, 93 U. S. 291, 300; Hawaii v. Mankichi, 190 U. S. 197, 212.

The law governing tariff relations with the Philippine Islands is for the benefit of the inhabitants thereof and not to provide revenue for the Government of the United States.

The far-reaching effect of the construction contended for by appellants would accomplish results entirely inconsistent with the purpose of Congress, to wit, cigars and other articles would be imported from Cuba in effective competition with, and perhaps to the exclusion of, similar products of the Philippine Islands, and articles on the free list which do not come into the United States from those islands would be imported from Cuba to the detriment of American industries.

Article VIII of the Cuban convention provides that the rates of duty granted to Cuba shall be "preferential in respect to all like imports from other countries," and then provides that in return therefor the concession to products of the United States shall likewise be "preferential in respect to all like imports from other countries."

The words "other countries" must mean the same thing in both clauses, and it is obvious that the latter clause cannot include the Philippine Islands because the word "preferential" is predicated upon and pre-supposes a treaty or convention with another country prejudicial to the United States. Cuba could not enter into such a treaty or convention with the Philippine Islands as a country.

MR. JUSTICE LAMAR, after making the foregoing statement, delivered the opinion of the court.

Article 2 of the Convention with Cuba provides that the products of that island shall be admitted into the VOL. CCXXI-42

United States at a reduction of twenty per cent of the rates of duty in the Tariff of 1897, or tariff laws subsequently enacted. There is much force in the suggestion that the reduction is limited to the rates of duty in general tariff acts, and does not apply to special rates under special agreements with other countries. Whitney v. Robertson, 124 U. S. 190. This point, however, we purposely leave open and limit our consideration to the principal question discussed in the brief, whether the Philippine Islands are "another country" within the meaning of the eighth article of the Cuban Treaty, providing that the rates therein granted shall continue “preferential in respect to all like imports from other countries."

This treaty was signed and proclaimed several years after it had been decided, in the Insular Cases, that Porto Rico and the Philippine Islands were not foreign countries, but territory of the United States, subject to such laws as Congress might enact for their political and fiscal management. In 1901 this court, in Fourteen Diamond Rings v. The United States, 183 U. S. 176, 178, said that "the theory that a country remains foreign with respect to the tariff laws, until Congress has acted by embracing it within the Customs Union, presupposes that the country may be domestic for one purpose and foreign for another." That case and DeLima v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 1; United States v. Heinszen, 206 U. S. 370; Dooley v. United States, 183 U. S. 151, show that, notwithstanding their geographical remoteness, the Philippines are not a foreign country, and, if so, not "another country" within the meaning of the Cuban Treaty.

There have been statutes in which the language indicated an intent to make a distinction between a country and its colonies. But in the absence of some qualifying phrase "the word country in the revenue laws of the United States has always been construed to embrace all

the possessions of a foreign State, however widely separated, which are subject to the same supreme executive and legislative control." Stairs v. Peaslee, 18 How. 521, 526. If, therefore, in our revenue laws, a colony is treated as a part of the country to which it belongs, the Philippine Islands must be treated as a part of this Nation and not as another country. It must be presumed that the words "other country" in the Cuban Treaty were used according to their known and established interpretation, Ibid, and did not refer to charges on shipments from territory belonging to the United States. That they were not so regarded appears from the language of the act of March 8, 1902, 32 Stat., c. 140, which studiously avoids using the words "imports," and enacts that upon articles coming into the United States from the Philippine Archipelago," there shall be levied only seventy-five per cent of the rates of duty imposed on like articles imported from foreign countries. These duties, when collected, are not covered into the Treasury of the United States, but are to be used and expended solely for the use and government of the Philippine Islands.

But it is argued that even if the United States understood the Philippine Islands to be a part of this country, Cuba could not be expected to understand that the words "other countries" did not include the Philippines if a duty was in fact charged on goods coming from those islands.

But the eighth article refers to "imports"-the correlative of "exports." This necessarily related to shipments from a country which was foreign to the United States. Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. Louisiana, 156 U. S. 590, 600; Patapsco Co. v. North Carolina, 171 U. S. 345, 353. The provision that the rates granted to Cuba shall continue "preferential in respect to all like imports from other countries," does not relate to charges on shipments between places under the same flag, but to duties laid on ship