To give this Court jurisdiction on a direct appeal from, or writ
of error to, a court of appeals on the ground of a constitutional
question, such question must be real and substantial, and not a
mere claim in words.
The questions involved in this case as to the right of the
government to collect duties on merchandise coming into the United
States from the Canal Zone, Isthmus of Panama, under the Act of
March 2, 1905, c. 1311, 33 Stat. 843, have already been settled by
the case of
Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.
S. 244, and the writ of error is dismissed for want of
jurisdiction.
The facts are stated in the opinion.
PER CURIAM.
It is established that to give this Court jurisdiction on a
direct appeal from, or writ of error to, a circuit court, on the
ground of a constitutional question, such question must be real and
substantial, and not a mere claim in words.
This was an action brought against the collector of customs for
the recovery of duties paid under the Act of March 2, 1905, 33
Stat. 843, c. 1311, entitled, "An Act Fixing the Status of
Merchandise
Page 216 U. S. 611
Coming into the United States from the Canal Zone, Isthmus of
Panama," providing
"that all laws affecting imports of articles, goods, wares, and
merchandise, and entry of persons into the United States from
foreign countries, shall apply to articles, goods, wares, and
merchandise, and persons coming from the Canal Zone, Isthmus of
Panama, and seeking entry into any state or territory of the United
States or the District of Columbia."
Plaintiff claimed that the merchandise in question was not
liable to the duties thus paid, but the circuit court ruled that,
in view of the treaty between the Republic of Panama and the United
States, and the various acts of Congress relating to such zone, the
principles laid down in
Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.
S. 244, were decisive of the questions raised herein. We
concur in that conclusion, and dismiss the writ of error for want
of jurisdiction.
Writ of error dismissed.
