PHILIPPINE ISLANDS. War was de clared with Spain on April 25, 1898. On May 1, 1898, the forces of the United States captured Manila bay and harbor. The pro tocol of August 12, 1898, provided that the United States would occupy and hold the city, bay and harbor of Manila pending the control, disposition and government of the Philippines. Manila was opened as a port of entry on August 20, 1898, and Cebu on March 14, 1899. The executive order of July 12, 1898, was not proclaimed in Cebu until February 22, 1899, or later. The treaty of peace was signed on December 10, 1898, but ratifications were not exchanged until April 11, 1899. The Spanish forces evac uated the island of Cebu on December 25, 1898, having first appointed a provisional governor. Shortly thereafter the native in habitants formerly in insurrection against Spain took possession of the island, formed a so-called republic and administered the af fairs of the island until possession was sur rendered to the United States on February 22, 1899, prior to which time the United States had not been in possession of the is lands.
After the treaty of peace with Spain, the Philippines ceased to be a "foreign country" in the view of the tariff act ; De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 1, 21 Sup. Ct. 743, 45 L. Ed. 1041; the subsequent insurrection did not constitute it such ; Lincoln v. U. S., 197 U. S. 419, 25 Sup. Ct. 455, 49 L. Ed. 816. No distinction can be made, so far as .concerns the matters decided in De Lima v. Bidwell 182•U. S. 1, 21 Sup. Ct. 743, 45 Z. Ed. 10414 between Porto Rico and the Philippines; Fourteen Diamond Rings v. U. S., 183 U. S. 176, 22 Sup. et. 59, 46 L. Ed. 138. The in habitants continuing to reside there, who were Spanish subjects on April 11, 1899, and resided there and their children born subse quently thereto are made citizens of the Phil ippines and entitled to the protection of the United States, excepting such as have elect ed to remain subjects of Spain.
For a history of matters growing out of the Spanish-American war, see U. S. v. Heins zen, 206 U. S. 370, 27 Sup. Ct. 742, 51 L. Ed. 1098, 11 Ann. Cas. 688; Macleod v. U. S., 229 U. S. 416, 33 Sup. Ct. 955, 57 L. Ed. 1260.
Congress in dealing with the Philippine Islands may delegate legislative authority to such agencies as it may select; U. S. v. Heinszen, 206 U. S. 370, 27 Sup. Ct. 742, 51 L. Ed. 1098, 11 Ann. Cas. 688. In 1901 it had been held that while the president, as commasder-in-chief, had authority to impose customs duties in Porto Rico on goods com ing into that country from the United States prior to the ratification of the treaty, no such executive power existed after that rat ification; De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 1,
21 Sap. Ct. 743, 45 L. Ed. 1041. After the ratification of the treaty with Spain, con gress passed the Foraker Act, imposing tar iff duties. These, too, were held lawful be cause they were imposed, not simply by virtue of the authority of the president, act ing under the military power, but in con formity with a valid act of congress; Dooley v. U. S., 183 U. S. 151, 22 Sup. Ct. 62, 43 L. Ed. 128.
On the same day, in a case involving the validity of tariff duties levied on diamonds brought into the United States from the Philippines, it was held that such duties were unlawful; Fourteen Diamond Rings v. U. S., 183 U. S. 176, 22 Sup. Ct. 59, 46 L. Ed. 138; because the Philippines were not for eign territory. In January and in March, 1902, in two cases, it was sought to recover duties paid on goods taken into the Philip pines, after the ratification of the treaty with Spain and before the passage of the act of congress of March 8, 1902. It was held that the president was without power, after the ratification of the treaty, and in the absence of express authority from con gress, to impose the duties in question ; Lin coln v. U. S., 197 U. S. 419, 25 Sup. Ct. 455, 49 L. Ed. 816; id., 202 U. S. 484, 26 Sup. Ct. 728, 50 L. Ed. 1117. An act of congress of June 30, 1906, then ratified the collection of duties levied under the order of the presi dent. In a case commencing after the de cision in Fourteen Diamond Rings v. U. S., 183 U. S. 176, 22 Sup. Ct. 59, 46 L. Ed. 138, it was contended that congress had not the power to ratify, by legislation, an order which the president had no right to make without express authority from congress, and that congress could not delegate to the president the right of prescribing a tariff of duties. The court held that, though the du ties were illegally exacted, the illegality was not the result of an inherent want of power in the United States to have authorized the imposition of the duties, but simply arose from the failure to delegate to the official the authority essential to give immediate validity to his conduct in,,enforcing the pay ment of the duties; that the illegal act of the president might be ratified by congress in accordance with the law of agency, and that congress might delegate legislative author ity to the president or to any other agent it might select; U. S. v. Heinszen, 206 U. S. 370, 27 Sup. Ct. 742, 51 L. Ed. 1098, 11 Ann. Cas. 688.