New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1898-12-10
THE COLONIAL TARIFF QUESTION.

In view of the discussion over the power OF
the United States to establish after completed
annexation separate tariff systems In Porto
Rico and tho Philippines ii is instructive TO
note the views Of early statesmen as 10 tho
meaning Of the Constitution in forbiddlng dis
elimination between the ports of different states
and enioining uniform duties throughout the
United States The fact that our Territories
have in general been subject 10 the same com
mcrcial conditions as the ncighboring States
and that no necessity has arisen for separate
tariff legislation concerning them has for US
practically wiped out the possible distinction
between States and not States so far as tax
laws are concerned. Nobody would think Of
lcvying different duties in NcwMcxico from
those levied in Texas. and from long usc in
the application OF uniform tariffs are likely
TO assume that the constitutional phrase, uni
form throughout the United States" means
territory as we'll AZ States requires the prac
tlce which expedency has dictated. and so will
compel the extension Of the domestic tariff 10
the new possessions as soon they are settled
under our rule unless avoid il by some sub
terfugc % mere Guardianship or "occupa
ton
Chief Justice Marshall in 1920 interpreted
the phrase as meaning the whole american
cmpire" and said that "thc United States" was
"thr name given to our great Republic which
is composed OF States and Territories That
expression Of opinion has great weight In in
terprcting the CONSTITUTIONS hut II is to he re-
mcmbercd that Il WAS not uttered concerning
the point directly In question but was simply
one step in course OF reasoning TO show that
Congress had power; 10 levy direct taxes in the
Territories and District of Columbia a power
then in dispute Whether Chief Justice Mar
Shall would have held a tariff discrimination
in 4 Territory unconstitutional II that question
had been brought directly before him Is a mat
ter Of speculation. Certainly he threw no Oh
stacleS In the way Of the discrimination in
favor of French and. Spanish ships In the ports
Of Louisiana and Florida under the treaties OF
lSG; and 1919. though it is to be conceded that
such Determinations might have been defend
cd mere conditions and restrictions under
which we acquired Louisiana and Florida. But
whatever Marshall might have thought in 1920,
u Is certain that ut the beginning Of the cen
fury men who knew the trainers Of the Consti-
tuition or themselves had hand in framing il
were perfectly convinced of the power Of Con-
gress to exercise absolute authority I'm the Ter
ritories and establish separate tariffs In them
Notwithstanding the Constitutions rule of mi.
formity throughout the United States" John
Randolph and Caesar A. Rodney took that view
The constltutonality Of the commercial agree
ment OF the Louisiana treaty did not pass I'M
challenged Men said that ew-Orlenns could
not he opened TO French and Spanish ships on
different terms from NewYork and Boston
But that argument did not prevail. The treaty
was ratified and the laws 10 carry II into effect
were passed by botn houses
One Of the answers 10 the argument Of I'M
consttutionallty Is peculiarly interesting, be-
cause It anticipates the conditions Of the Porto
Rico and Philippines tariff question. When the
Louisiana Appropriation bill was before the
House Of Representatives Joseph y. Nicholson.