The review of the final judgment of the District Court of the
United States for Porto Rico by this Court is not restricted to
cases in which the Constitution or a treaty of the United States or
an act of Congress is brought in question and the right claimed
under it is denied. There may be cases, certainly civil cases,
which, if determined in a Supreme Court of one of the territories
of the United States could be reviewed although not involving any
right of a distinctly federal nature.
But a criminal case like this arising under § 3082 Rev.Stat.,
could not be reviewed by this Court in virtue of the words, in § 35
of the Porto Rico Act of April 12, 1900, "in the same cases as from
the Supreme Courts of the Territories of the United States."
Nor will the words in the same act,
"in all cases where the Constitution of the United States, or a
treaty thereof, or an act of Congress is brought in question and
the right claimed thereunder is denied,"
authorize this Court to review a judgment of conviction in a
criminal case in the court below under § 3082 Rev.Stat., when the
only claim at the trial was that the
Page 195 U. S. 173
indictment did not charge "an offense under the statutes of the
United States." Such an objection was too indefinite.
Unless a judgment in the United States District Court for Porto
Rico can be reviewed here, then it is final, for no case determined
in that court can be carried to a circuit court of appeals.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
MR. JUSTICE HARLAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Revised Statutes of the United States provide that,
"if any person shall fraudulently or knowingly import or bring
into the United States, or assist in so doing, any merchandise,
contrary to law, or shall receive, conceal, buy, sell, or in any
manner facilitate the transportation, concealment, or sale of, such
merchandise after importation, knowing the same to have been
imported contrary to law, such merchandise shall be forfeited, and
the offender shall be fined in any sum not exceeding five thousand
dollars nor less than fifty dollars, or be imprisoned for any time
not exceeding two years, or both."
§ 3082.
The Act of April 12, 1900, temporarily providing revenues and a
civil government for Porto Rico, declares, among other things,
that, on and after its passage
"the same tariffs, customs, and duties shall be levied,
collected, and paid upon all articles imported into Porto Rico from
ports other than those of the United States which are required by
law to be collected upon articles imported into the United States
from foreign countries;"
also, that
"the statutory laws of the United States not locally
inapplicable, except as hereinbefore or hereinafter otherwise
provided, shall have the same force and effect in Porto Rico as in
the United States, except the internal revenue laws, which, in view
of the provisions of section three, shall not have force and effect
in Porto Rico."
31 Stat. 77, 80, c. 191, §§ 2, 14.
Page 195 U. S. 174
These statutes being in force, the plaintiff in error, Amado,
was indicted in the District Court of the United States for Porto
Rico, upon the charge of having, on May 28, 1901, unlawfully
received, concealed, and facilitated the transportation,
concealment, and sale of certain specified quantities of Holland
gin, vermouth, brandy, and Danish beer, theretofore, as the accused
well knew, fraudulently imported into Porto Rico, contrary to law,
without the payment to the United States of the duties imposed upon
such articles.
The accused was duly arraigned, and found guilty by a jury. A
motion in arrest of judgment having been overruled, he was
sentenced to confinement in the penitentiary of Porto Rico for one
year and one day, and to pay a fine of $500. A new trial was
denied, and the accused sued out the present writ of error.
In allowing the writ, the judge of the district court expressed
some doubt whether error would lie, but he resolved the doubt in
favor of the defendant.
The government insists that the writ of error should be
dismissed for want of jurisdiction in this Court to review the
judgment below; otherwise, that the judgment should be
affirmed.
It is provided by the above Act of April 12, 1900, that the
District Court of the United States for Porto Rico
"shall have, in addition to the ordinary jurisdiction of
district courts of the United States, jurisdiction of all cases
cognizant in the circuit courts of the United States, and shall
proceed therein in the same manner as a circuit court."
31 Stat. 77, 84, c. 191, § 34.
The act also provides that writs of error and appeals from the
final decisions of the Supreme Court of Porto Rico and the district
court of the United States shall be allowed and may be taken to
this Court
"in the same manner and under the same regulations and in the
same cases as from the supreme courts of the territories of the
United States, and such writs of error and appeal shall be allowed
in all cases where
Page 195 U. S. 175
the Constitution of the United States, or treaty thereof, or an
act of Congress, is brought in question and the right claimed
thereunder is denied. . . ."
Ibid., § 35.
The review of the final judgment of the District Court of the
United States for Porto Rico is not restricted to those cases in
which the Constitution or a treaty of the United States or an act
of Congress is brought in question and the right claimed under it
denied. This construction is too narrow and technical. There may be
cases -- certainly civil cases -- in the United States District
Court for Porto Rico that do not involve any question arising under
the Constitution or a treaty or an act of Congress, and yet if the
case be one which, if determined in a supreme court of one of the
territories of the United States, could be brought here for
reexamination, the final judgment could be reviewed by this Court
although no right of a distinctly federal nature was involved.
Royal Ins. Co. v. Martin, 192 U.
S. 149,
192 U. S. 160;
Hijo v. United States, 194 U. S. 315,
194 U. S. 320.
See Crowley v. United States, 194 U.
S. 461. But even this test, if applied here, will not
avail the accused, for the statutes regulating the appellate
jurisdiction of this Court do not authorize a review of the final
judgment in a supreme court of one of the territories of the United
States in a criminal case like this one.
Can our jurisdiction be sustained by reference to the words in
the Porto Rico act,
"in all cases where the Constitution of the United States, or a
treaty thereof, or an act of Congress, is brought in question and
the right claimed thereunder is denied?"
We must answer this question in the negative. The nearest
approach to a claim of specific right under the Constitution or a
treaty of the United States, or under an act of Congress, was when
the accused, in his written motion to arrest the judgment or
sentence, insisted that the indictment did not set forth "an
offense under the statutes of the United States." But that language
amounted to nothing more, in legal effect, than a plea of not
guilty, or a demurrer upon the general ground that the indictment
did not state enough to
Page 195 U. S. 176
show an offense. It was not an assertion of any particular right
under the Constitution, or under any treaty, or under an act of
Congress which would be denied to him if the prosecution was
sustained. His contention was only that he was not subject to
criminal prosecution by reason of anything set forth in the
indictment. The indictment was plainly sufficient under the statute
prescribing the offense charged, and the objections to it were too
indefinite to meet the requirements of the act of 1900, and make
the case one which, by that act, could be brought to this Court for
review. Unless the case was one in which the judgment could be
reviewed here, then such judgment would be final, and not subject
to review, for no case determined in the United States court for
Porto Rico can be carried to a circuit court of appeals. We said in
Royal Ins. Co. v. Martin, 192 U.
S. 149,
192 U. S. 160,
that
"Congress did not intend that any connection should exist
between the United States court for Porto Rico and any circuit
court of appeals established under the act of 1891."
The writ of error must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction in
this Court, and
It is so ordered.