Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1901-05-28
THE OOWNES CASE.
Foraker Act Constitutional and Plaintiff Can
not Recover the Duties.

Washington. May 97.-Jusiicc Brown al
so delivered the opinion OF the court. the
case of Downcs vs.. Collector Bidwcil Of
the port OF New York. in which suit was
brought by Downcs To recover back duties
amounting to s659-3 cXacted and paid UNI
der protest upon certain oranges con-
signed to the plaintiff al New York and
brought thithcr from tho port ~ San Juan
In the island ~ Porto Rico during the
month Of November. 1890.
This case involved the question whether
merchandise brough; into the port of New
York from Porto Rico since the passage
Of the Foraker act is exempt from duty.
Notwithstanding the third section of that
act. which requires the payment Of 'nf-
teen per cent. of the duties which are re
quircd to he levied. collected and paid
upon like articles of merchandise import
ed from foreign countries"
The circuit court OF the United States
for the southern district % New York
sustained the government in this position
in imposing day. The supreme court
affirmed the opinion OF the C!rclit court.
saying:
we are of opinion that the island q
Porto Rico is territory appurtcnanJ be
longing to the United States, hut not a
par, of the United States within the rev
cuuc clause Of the constitution. that tho
Foraker act Ks constitutional SO far as =
imposes duties upon imports from such
island and that tho plaintiff cannot re
cover back the duties eXacted In this
case.
Justice Brown carly in his opinion out
lined the distinction between this case ana
~. I l,lI hc. ~
decided. saying:
IN the case of he Lima VS.. Eidwc!l
we hold that upon the ratification Of the
treaty Of peace with Spain. Porto Rico
ceased to be a foreign country. and t.at
duties were no longer coilectahlc upol
merchandise brought from that island. II
Porto kico lie lart OF the United Sta eS.
the Forakc: act imposing duties upon its
| products is unconstitutional. not only by
| reason of a viola lion of the uniformity
| clause. but because by Section Vessels
| bourd to or from the state cannot be
| obliged to enter. clear or pay duties in
| another
The case also involves the broader
question whether The revenue clauses of
| the constitution extend of their own force
| TO our newly acquired territories. The
constitution Itself does nos answer this
| question. It's solution must be found in
the nature of the government created by
that instrument. in the opinion of its CON
| tcmporaries. in the practical construc don
put upon it by Congress and in the dccis-
ions of this court"
Justice Brown entered upon n review
| of the formation of the government
| and the Constitutional provisions. In
| short, he concluded on that point, the
| Constitution deals with states. their
people and their representatives" AS
| a result of citations. the justice laid
down the following general conclusions:
eliminating, then. from the opinions
| of this court all expressions unneces-
sary to the disposition of the particu-
| lar case. and cleaning therefrom the ex-
act point decided in each, the follow
ing propositions may be considered as
established:
/. That the District of Columbia and
judicial clause of the Constitution
| given jurisdiction in cases between
citizens of different states.
g That territories are not states,
within the meaning of Revised Stat
| uteS, Section IO9, permitting WrltS or
error from this court in cases where
the validity of a states statute is
drawn into question.
3. That the District of Columbia
and the territories are states as that
| word is used in treaties with foreign
powers. with respect to the ownership,
disposition and Inheritance of property.
T. That the territories are not within
the clause of the Constitution provid-
ing for the creation of supreme court
and such inferior courts as Congress
may see fit to establish.
5. That the Constitution does not
apply to foreign countries or trials
therein conducted. and that Congress
may lawfully provide for such trials
before consular tribunals without the
intervention Of grand or petit jury.