The morning Astorian. [volume] (Astoria, Oregon) 1899-1930, 1901-05-28
INSULAR CASES
ARE DECIDED
Supreme Court Rules Against
Government Contention.
NOT A FOREIGN TERRITORY
Duties Collected on Porto RIcsn Goods Must Be
Returned Strong Dissenting 0ainlOn
Other Important Cases to
Be Decided.

WASHINGTON. May T.-In ,he
United States supreme Court today.
opinions were handed down in all but
two Of the cases before that court in
volving the relations Of the United
States 20 its insuiar possessions. The
two cases in which no conclusion was
announced are those known as the
Fourteen Diamond Rings case and the
second OF the Dooiey cases. The unde-
cided Dooley case deals with a phase
Of the Porto Rican importation Of mer-
chandlse from the Philippines to the
Unltetd States. II is presumed the re-
naming cases will be passed on to-
morrow.
OF the several cases decided today.
the two which attracted the greatest
share OF the attention Of the court
were what Is known as the Deii-na case
and that known as the Downes case.
and OF these two the opinion in the
Downes case is considered the most far
reaching. az Il affects our future rela-
tlons. whereas the Delima case dealt
with the transitional phase Of our inst
lar relations. The Delima case was the
first 10 receive the attention OF the
court, and as It appeared 20 be quite
sweepingly opposed to the governments
contentious, many persons precipitately
arrived at the conclusion that the gov
ernment had been worsted all along the
line. This view suffered a decided
change when a conclusion was an
nounced in he Downes case. The court
was very evenly divided on both cases.
but pslitlcal lines were not at all con-
trolling.
The Delima case involved the power
OF the government 10 collect duty on
goods imported into the United States
from Porto Rico after the ratification
Of The treaty OF Paris and before the
passage Of the Porto Rican act. The
court said :he governments contention
in this case was substantially the claim
that Porto Rico is a foreign territory.
The entire case turned upon that cen
ter. the court 1eld that the position
was not we'll taken; that Porto Rico
was not at the time foreign terri
tory, and that therefore the duties
which had been collected must be re-
| turned.
| Tha daciSior In tha nowpas caSa fol =
lowed the history of the dealings OF the
United States with Porto Rico a
step farther. That case dealt
with the legality OF duties on
goods imported from Porto Rico to or
exported from there INTO the United
States. 1t means, in brief, that for tax
alton purposes they are not a part of
the United States to the extent that
goods shipped between their ports and
the United States are entitled TO the
same treatment as though they were
shipped between New York and New
Orleans.
Justice Brown delivered the courts
VplnluHs III UOlA CNASSS dAu bheIG NCAS
vigorous dissenting opinions in both.
In the Downes case four OF the nine
members of the court united in an op-
inion critlcising in strong language the
opinion Of the majority in that case.
New York after the Foraker act, pro-
viding duty on goods shipped from Por-
to Rico to the United States. In this
case, the court showed that such ac-
tion was legal and constitutional. The
point of the two opinions considered
collectively Is that Porto Rico was never
after the acquisition of that island a
foreign territory; that until congress
acted upon the question no duty could
be collected, but as soon as congress
outlined the method of controlling the
islands revenues that action became
binding: in other words, that dSngress
has power under the constitution to pre-
scribe the manner Of collecting the
revenues Of he country's insular pos
sessions from the United States.
In this opposing opinion the chief JUS
tice and Justices Harlan, Brewer and
Peckham united and chief justice and
Justice Harlan presented their views
in written form. Justices Gray Shiras.
White and McKenna also, while agree
ing with the conclusion announced by
Justice Brown, announced that they
had reached a conclusion by different
lines Of the argument and Justices Gray
Whitet and McKenna announced the
opinions outlining their respective po-
sitions. Justice Shiras, Justice White
and Justice McKenna also dissented in
the Delima case, uniting in an opinion
Justice Gray also presented an indepen-
dent and dissenting opinion in that
case.
| ANOTHER DECISION.
WA cIJINGqNON. Nav 27-The s1i-