Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1901-05-28

eminent for Porto Rico, with special pro-
vision that the taxes levied in the United
States on Porto Rican exports should be
held as a special found for Porto Rico 8
benefit 1t was admitted that on it's face
the part of the act with reference to du-
formity prescribed by the Constitution. The
constitutional uniformity is a geographical
uniformity. But" the opinion continued,
lit was said that Congress in attempting
to levy these duties was not exercising
power derived from the first clause Of sec
ton s. or restricted by it, because in deal
ing with the territories Congress exercises
unlimited powers of governm ent, and, more
over. that these duties are merely local
taxes.
He then referred to the decision of Chief
Justice Marshall in the case Of Lough-
borough agt Blake, and said that the view
taken had never been overruled.
Continuing. he combated the contention
that these particular duties are local IN
their nature, and said the levy is clearly a
regulation of commerce and made in the
exercise of national powers. He added:
Duties Not Local.
I'm any point of view the imposition of
duties on commerce operates to regulate
commerce. and is not a matter of local
legislation: and it follows that the levy of
these duties was in the exercise of the ma
tional power to do so and subject to the re-
qurement of geographical uniformity.
The fact that the proceeds of these du-
ties are devoted by the act to the use of the
territory does not make national taxes
local. Nobody disputes the power Of Con-
gress to lay and collect duties, geograph-
fcally uniform, and apply the proceeds by
proper appropriation act to the relief of
particular territory, but the destination
of the proceeds would not change the source
OF the power to lay and collect. And that
suggestion certainly is not STRENGTHENED
when based on the diversion of duties COL
lected from all parts of the United States to
territorial treasury before reaching the
treasury of the United States. Clause Z of
section of article l provides that no
money shall be drawn from the treasury
but in consequence of appropriations made
by law, and the proposition that this may
De rendered inapplicable If the money Is
not permitted to be paid in so as to be sus-
ceptible of being drawn out is somewhat
startling.'
The proposition that Chief Justice Mar
shall had erred in his opinion and that the
rule of uniformity was a limitation to the
states as such was declared to be wholly
unwarranted, and quite a number of cases
We're cited in which the Supreme Court and
congress, notably by the thirteenth and
fifteenth amendments to the Constitution
had sustained the view that the United
States meant territories as well as states
VI the contention that by International
law Porto Rico came to US subject to such
legislation as Congress might enact Chief
Justice Fuller said:
The new master was. in this instance,
the United States. Il constitutional govern
ment with limited powers, and the terms
which the Constitution itself imposed. or
which might be imposed in accordance with
the Constitution, were the terms on which
the new master took possession.
Contentious Rejected.
Chief Justice Fuller absolutely rejected
the contentious that the rule of uniformity
was not applicable to Porto Rico, because
1t had not been incorporated into and be-
come an integral part of the United States
The word incorporation had no occult
meaning, and whatever it's situation be-
fore. the Foraker act made Porto Rico an
organized territory of the United States
Inc concurrfng opinion of the majority
recognized that Congress in dealing with
the people of new territories or possessions
is bound to respect the fundamental guar
antees OF llfe liberty and property but
assumes that Congress is not bound in
those territories or possessions, to follow
the rules of taxation prescribed by the
Constitution. And yet the power to tax
involves the power to destroy, and the levy
places under the jurisdiction of the gov
eminent
The logical result is that Congress may
prohibit commerce altogether between the
states and territories, and may prescribe
one rule of taxation in one territory, and
different rule in another
In our judgment, so much of the Porto
Rican act as authorized the imposition of
these duties is invalid, and plaintiffs were
entitled to recover.
Some argument was made as to gem
eral consequences apprehended to flow from
this result, but the language of the Con-
stitution Is too plain and unambiguous to
permit its meaning to be thus Influenced
Again, 1t Is objected on behalf Of
the government that the possession Of abb
solute power is essential to the acquisition
of vast and distant territories, and that
We should regard the situation as 1t Is to-
day rather than as 1t was a century ago.
But 1t must be remembered that,
as Marshall and Story declared. the Con-
stitution was framed for ages to come,
and that the sagacious men who framed
1t were well aware that a mighty future
waited on their work.