doubt whatever that it continues to be a part of Cuba and that it is not and never has been territory of the United States. This is the view with which President Roosevelt authorized the pending treaty, and Mr. Hay signed it, and I expect to urge its confirmation.”

There are some letters of an Assistant Secretary of War or written by his direction, and other matters, referred to, which we do not regard as seriously affecting the conclusion that the Executive has consistently acted on the determination that the United States had no substantial claim to the Isle of Pines under the treaty.

The only significant legislative action is found in the proviso of the act of March 2, 1901, the Army Appropriation Act (31 Stat. 895, c. 803), commonly called the Platt Amendment (897), which reads:

"Provided further, That in fulfillment of the declaration contained in the joint resolution approved April twentieth, eighteen hundred and ninety-eight, entitled 'For the recognition of the independence of the people of Cuba, demanding that the Government of Spain relinquish its authority and government in the island of Cuba, and to withdraw its land and naval forces from Cuba and Cuban waters, and directing the President of the United States to use the land and naval forces of the United States to carry these resolutions into effect,' the President is hereby authorized to 'leave the government and control of the island of Cuba to its people' so soon as a government shall have been established in said island under a constitution which, either as a part thereof or in an ordinance appended thereto, shall define the future relations of the United States with Cuba, substantially as follows:"

Then follows eight clauses, of which the sixth is:

"VI. That the Isle of Pines shall be omitted from the proposed constitutional boundaries of Cuba, the title thereto being left to future adjustment by treaty."

It appears that certain American citizens, asserting interests in the Isle of Pines, had contended that it belonged to the

United States under the treaty, and the sixth clause of the Platt Amendment, while not asserting an absolute claim of title on our part, gave opportunity for an examination of the question of ownership and its settlement through a treaty with Cuba. The Republic of Cuba has been governing the isle since May 20, 1902-the present situation need not be discussed and has made various improvements in administration at the suggestion of our Government, but Congress has taken no action to the contrary of Cuba's title as superior to

ours.

It may be conceded that the action of both the political departments has not been sufficiently definite to furnish a conclusive interpretation of the treaty of peace as an original question, and as yet no agreement has been reached under the Platt Amendment. The Isle of Pines continues at least de facto under the jurisdiction of the government of the Republic of Cuba, and that settles the question before us, because as the United States have never taken possession of the Isle of Pines as having been ceded by the treaty of peace, and as it has been and is being governed by the Republic of Cuba, it has remained "foreign country" within the meaning of the Dingley Act according to the ruling in De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 1, and cases cited; United States v. Rice, 4 Wheat. 246. There has been no change of nationality for revenue purposes, but, on the contrary, the Cuban Government has been recognized as rightfully exercising sovereignty over the Isle of Pines as a de facto government until otherwise provided. It must be treated as foreign, for this Government has never taken, nor aimed to take, that possession in fact and in law which is essential to render it domestic.

Judgment affirmed.

MR. JUSTICE MCKENNA concurred in the judgment.

MR. JUSTICE WHITE and MR. JUSTICE HOLMES concurred

specially.

MR. JUSTICE MOODY took no part.

205 U. S.

WHITE and HOLMES, JJ., concurring.

MR. JUSTICE WHITE, with whom was MR. JUSTICE HOLMES, concurring.

My reasons for agreeing to the conclusion announced by the court are separately stated to prevent all implication of an expression of opinion on my part as to a subject which in my judgment the case does not require and which, as it is given me to see it, may not be made without a plain violation of my duty.

The question which the case raises, by way of a suit to recover duties paid on goods brought from the Isle of Pines, is whether that island, by the treaty with Spain, became a part of the United States, or was simply left or made a part of the Island of Cuba, over which the sovereignty of Spain was relinquished.

I accept the doctrine which the opinion of the court announces, following Jones v. United States, 137 U. S. 202, that "who is the sovereign de jure or de facto of a territory is not a judicial but a political question, the determination of which by the legislative and executive departments of any government conclusively binds the judges as well as other officers, citizens and subjects of that government." That the legislative and executive departments have conclusively settled the present status of the Isle of Pines as de facto a part of Cuba and have left open for future determination the de jure claim, if any, of the United States to the island, as the court now declares, is to me beyond possible contention. Thus, by the amendment to the act of 1891, which was enacted to determine the de facto position of the island and to furnish a rule for the guidance of the executive authority in dealing in the future with the island, it was expressly provided "that the Isle of Pines shall be omitted from the proposed constitutional boundaries of Cuba, the title thereto being left to future adjustment by treaty." So, also, when the Island of Cuba was turned over to the Cuban government by the military authority of the United States, that government was expressly notified by such authority, under the direction of the President, that

VOL. CCV-18

WHITE AND HOLMES, JJ.,

concurring.

205 U.S.

whilst the de facto position of the Isle of Pines as a part of Cuba was not disturbed it must be understood that its de jure relation was reserved for future determination by treaty between Cuba and the United States. And this notification and relation was in terms accepted by the President of the Republic of Cuba. If the opinion now announced stopped with these conclusive expressions I should of course have nothing to say. But it does not do so. Although declaring that the de facto position of the Isle of Pines as resulting from legislative and executive action is binding upon courts, and although referring to the conclusive settlement of that de facto status and the reservation by the legislative and executive departments of the determination of the de jure status for future action, the opinion asserts that it is open and proper for the court to express an opinion upon the de jure status, that is, to decide upon the effect of the treaty. In doing so it is declared that all the world knew that the Isle of Pines was an integral part of Cuba, this being but a prelude to an expression of opinion as to the rightful construction of the treaty. To my mind any and all expression of opinion concerning the effect of the treaty and the de jure relation of the Isle of Pines is wholly unnecessary and cannot be indulged in without disregarding the very principle upon which the decision is placed, that is, the conclusive effect of executive and legislative action. In other words, to me it seems that the opinion, whilst recognizing the force of executive and legislative action, necessarily disregards it. This follows, because the views which are expressed on the subject of the meaning of the treaty amount substantially to declaring that the past action of the executive and legislative departments of the government on the subject have been wrong, and that any future attempt by those departments to proceed upon the hypothesis that the de jure status of the island is unsettled will be a violation of the treaty as now unnecessarily interpreted.

MR. JUSTICE HOLMES Concurs.

205 U. S.

Opinion of the Court

SWING v. WESTON LUMBER COMPANY.

ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN.

No 145. Argued January 10, 1907.-Decided April 8, 1907.

The State has undoubted power to prohibit foreign insurance companies from doing business within its limits, or, in allowing them to do so, to impose such conditions as it pleases.

Where the state court decides that a foreign insurance company cannot recover assessments on a policy issued within the State because it has not complied with the statutory conditions imposed by the State, no Federal question is involved, and a request to find that the state statute could not prevent the insured from going outside the State and obtaining insurance on property within the State does not raise a Federal question, where the fact was otherwise, and the writ of error will be dismissed. 140 Michigan, 344, affirmed.

THE facts are stated in the opinion.

Mr. Patterson A. Reece, with whom Mr. Virgil I. Hixson was on the brief, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Edward C. Chapin for defendant in error.

MR. CHIEF JUSTICE FULLER delivered the opinion of the court.

This action was brought in the Circuit Court of Schoolcraft County, Michigan, by Swing, trustee of the Union Mutual Fire Insurance Company, a corporation of Ohio, against the Weston Lumber Company, a corporation of Michigan, to collect its share as a policy holder of an assessment made by the order. of the Supreme Court of Ohio in liquidating the liabilities of the insurance company.

The assessment against defendant was in respect of a policy for $5,000 and a renewal thereof on defendant's lumber and other property at Manistique, Michigan. The insurance company was never licensed to do business in Michigan, and the