The citizen., 1901-05-31
DISSENTING OPINION HANDED
DOWN,

" '"S JOihSh Ill lhdl ODlulOH w
Justices Shiras, White and Gray.
Justice Mckenna went into a
detailed examination of the cases
cited in the majority opinion. lie
maintained that they did not show
a clear current of decision, but
disclosed much divergence of
view. He referred also to the
fact that precedents not in conso-
nance with the majority view
were now dismissed as dictum
and not binding opinion.
He spoke of the dangers attend
ing the dismissal of judicial opin.
ion as "dictum," and of the
greater danger when such a course
may interfere, or had interfered
with the action of a nation. Con
stancy and certainty of judicial
opinion was of the highest i'm
portance, the Justice declared,
and they should not be like the
"exhalations of marsh, shining
miStily." Justice McKenna's ex.
animation of the many precedents
was exhaustive, and almost an
hour was given to showing to
what extent the circumstances of
each case bore on the present con.
dltion Of Porto Rico.
HOW SPAIN MAY PROFIT.
The decision in the De Lima
case may make necessary a spec
lai session of Congress for a
rather unexpected reason. Under
the Paris treaty the government
of Spain was granted the per
mission to export free of duty to
its former possessions coming un.
der the jurisdiction of the United
States for term of 10 years.
Now the Supreme Court holds the
island of Porto Rico to be ga ter
ritory' of the United States.
Yet Spain can carry her goods to
that territory, and from that ter
rltory, under the Supreme Court
decision, they can be carried free
into this country. The result
would be free admission of Span
lsh goods to any part of this
country.
TECHNICAL POINT IN DoOLEY
CASE.
Justice Brown also announced
the opinion of the court in the
case of Dooley VS., the United
States, involving the validity of
a duty levied on goods imported
into Porto Rico from the United
States between the date of mill.
tary occupation and the taking
effect of the Porto Rico tariff act.
The court held that there could
be no doubt of the validity Of the
duties levied by virtue of General
Niles order prior to the ratifca
tlon of the treaty of peace. 1t
placed this right on the ground
of military necessity.
With reference to duties levied
after ratification of the peace
treaty the court said different
rule applied and it held these
duties invalid. Justices GRAY.
Shiras, McKenna aud White dis
sented, the latter delivering the
opinion.
SAME ARGUMENTS IN OTHER
CASES.
In the cases of Goetze VS.. the
United States and CrosSman VS..
the United States, brought here
from the Circuit Court for the
Southern District of New York to
test III the Goetze case the valid
lty of the levy of duty on an i'm.
portation of tobacco from Porto
Rico into the United States after
the ratification of the treaty and
before the passage of the Porto
Rico act and in the Crossman case
duty on liquors imported into
Hawaii after annexation. but be.
fore the taking effect of the act
providing government for Ha.
wall the court reversed the iudg.
ments below for the reasons cited
in the De Lima case, holding the
levy of duties was unconstitu-
tional.
In the Crossman case duties
were collected on goods imported
into the United States from Ha.
waii after the annexation and be.
fore the Hawaiian act went into
effect.
CONGRESS- RIGHTS UPHELD.
In the case of Downes VS.. Bid
well, Justice Brown delivered the
opinion at 2.30. 1t sustained the
governments holding that duties
on goods coming into
the United States from Porto
Rico after the Porto Rican act
took effect is constitutional. 1t
sustains in other words, the right
OF Congress to pass tariff laws
for Porto Rico, even though Porto
Rico be ga territory" of the
United States.