Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1901-01-12
Mr.. CARLISLE CONCLUDES
THE PORTO RICAN CASES IN THE SU-
PREME COURT.
What Caused Dissent From the bred
Scott DecisiOn-SenatOr Lindsay
Begins His Argument.

In the United States Supreme Court yes
terday afternoon, after The Stars report
of the argument on the Porto Rican cases
closed, Mr.. Carlisle read the portion of the
Porto Rican act establishing the rates of
duty and disposition of the moneys col
lected as basis for his complete argu-
ment, and said the court would see that
on all goods from the United States to
Porto Rico there should be levied Is per
cent of duties on foreign goods with the
internal revenue of Porto Rico added and
that goods from Porto Rico to the United
States enter upon the payment of 10 per
cent Of customs with internal revenue only
added, when the goods are of Porto Rico
manufacture, while goods from other coun-
tries paying the Porto Rico internal reve-
rue may come into this country without
other internal revenue tax.
1--WE insist he said, that this is not
an import duty. We object to the form
under which the government seized our
goods and held them on their arrival at
Porto Rico until We paid them tribute in
the form Of tax"
An import is something. he continued
coming from a foreign country. Porto Rico
cannot be a foreign country, for its courts
send appeals to this body. This is, there
fore, not an import tax, but an export tax
upon goods sent out of these states. and
there are two specific prohibitions against
were read to show that that tribunal had
held that no duty might be laid on ex-
ports from one state to another as to a
foreign country.
Claimed to BE an Export Duty.
Following this, Mr. Carlisle argued that
there could be no export duty, and said
that there must be fixed some time when
Porto Rico ceased to be foreign territory,
and even with that point he urged that
the tax must be considered unconstitutional.
If Congress could levy export duties. he
said there could be as many rates OF duty
as there are states or territories, for there
Is no provision for uniformity or export
taxation.
Argument was made that the tax was an
export duty, and 1t was urged that the
goods left New York charged with the tax
and could not be secured by the owner
without the payment OF the duties. 1t Is
undoubtedly true that unless the whole
power to impose the tax Is controlled by
the place of payment this is an export tax
and in direct violation of the Constitution
of the United States. This tax, which I'M
der this law is just as general as tariff
law, Is said to be local tax. 1t is COL
lected everywhere, In every state and terri
tory How can 1t be called local? Is the
fact that proceeds of this tax are to be
used for certain purposes of more conse-
appropriated afterward. in proving that this
is a local tax More than half the general
duties are, he said, collected at New York.
yet It is not local tax. but tax. the
proceeds of which may be used everywhere.
No Right to Impose Such Tax.
1--WE deny" he went on. that Congress
has any right to impose any such tax upon
the trade between the states and terrific
ries. Congress may regulate commerce and
may govern the territory. but under the
guise of governing that territory may not
govern the states of New York or Pennsyl-
vania When it places tax upon the
goods taken to Porto Rico 1t Is governing
the state. The limitation must follow every
power"
He contended that the provisions show
that the tax Is an export tax and not an
import tax. and that 1t Is not a local tax,
but a general one. Should Congress have
the right to impose such q tax 1t will have
1t under its general powers and not as Leg
islation for local tax under its provision
for needful legislation for territories. The
power of Congress to legislate must be SUBJ
ject to all the limitations Of the Constitu-
ton.
The bred Scott Case.
HAD 1t not been that African slavery
was involved said Mr.. Carlisle in con-
clusion. .there would have been no dis
sent from the decision In the bred Scott