The San Francisco call., 1901-12-03

WW to-day decided the second Of
V V the Dooley cases. involving
the constitutionality Of the
law Of April Z, providing for the collec-
I ton Of duty on articles shipped from the
United States into Porto Rico. The de-
cision was rendered by Justice Brown.
The Government is sustained in the sec
end DoOley case. The Chief Justice and
justices Harlan, Brewer and Peckham
united IN a dissenting opinion. They hold
that the duty imposed was export in
character and the fact that it was levied
for the benefit Of Porto Rico did not
change its character.
The Dooley case grows out Of the i'm
position Of tariff duties on goods shipped
from New York to Porto Rico May l.
1900, TO October % of the same year under
the act of April u, 1900, providing reve-
nues and z civil government for Porto
Hlcos the sum involved being $l43S- InlS
money was collected at Porto Rico on
goods shipped to that port by Dooley,
Smith q Co. TO their agent in San Juan
The collections were imposed under that
secuon of law in question which provides
1hat " all merchandise coming into Porto
Rico from the Uunted States shall
be entered at the several ports OF entry
on payment of the Is per cent duties
which are required to be levied, collected
ana paid on like articles Of merchandise
imported from foreign countries into the
United States under the Dingley tariff
law.
The contention on the part of Dooley' 5
counsel was that Congress had not
power under the constitution to impose
taxes or duties such as were levied under
The act OF April L on articles taken into
Porto Rican ports from other ports of
the United States, Porto Rico being an
4nuegral portion OF the nation.
Porto Rico Not Foreign Territory.
Justice Brown held that as Porto Rico
is not foreign territory the goods shipped
TO Porto Rico are not exports, but
whether exports or imports, the wide
range Of Congress in the matter of tax
alton was sufficient for contingency of
this character. At best, he said, the duty
was a temporary eXpedient. and as il was
explicitly provided in the Foraker act
change Une character OF the enactment
II was held that the Foraker act was
merely legislation in the interest of Por-
10 hlCO. Inc FORAKER act was sustained
on the grounds laid down in the Downs
case, another Of the insular cases decided
at the last term The decision of the
lower court was affirmed Justice Brown
explicitly said that the opinion was not
TO be construed as q justification of ex-
port duties.
Justice Brown said that the duties levied
were attacked on the ground that they
violated the clause Of the constitution de-
claring that no tax or duty shall be laid
or articles exported from any State
The court, he said, in the case of Wood
ruff vs.. Parham, had held that the word
import in connection with the provis-
ions Of the constitution, that no State
shall levy any inposts or duties on i'm
ports or exports, applied only to articles
imported from foreign countries into the
United States In that case Justice Miller,
who delivered the opinion of the court,
said:
II is not too much to say so far as research
has extended neither the words export nor
import nor 'impOsts' are 10 be found IN the
discussion Of this subject they have come
O+he- rhsr fC-efr7 cS7-1I1,e-,e x-ito1I+ - sc-s go
special form OF words TO show that foreign
commerce is not meant Whether we look
Il q clause Of he ron.
parts of that instrument. or to the history oi
its formation and adoption, or TO the com
those transactions. we are forced to the con
clusion that no intention existed to prohibi
by this clause.
This definition Of the word 'fmposts'
had afterward been approved in the cas-
of Brown vs. Houston. Proceeding, Jus
tice Brown said that if then. Porto Rict
be no longer q, foreign country under tn,
Dingley act. as was held by q majority O.
the court in De Lima VS.. Bidwell, it /.
impossible TO say that goods carried from
New York to Porto Rico can be con
sidered as exported from New Yorl
within the meaning Of that clause of tht
constitution If they are neither exports
nor imports they are still liable to b,
taxed by Congress under the ample anC
comprehensive authority conferred by tn,
constitution, ito lay and collect taxes
duties. impOsts and excises"
Findings Of Justice Brown.
The question whether a duty laid b,
Congress upon goods arriving at PortI
Rico from New York is a duty upon al
export from New York or upon an iunpor
10 Porto Rico, he said, was not free from
doubt, the manner in which and tn
place at which the tax is levied being O
minor consequence Justice Brown con
tinuing said:
One thing however, is entirely clear TIL
tax imposed is on goods imported TO Port
Rico since II was enacted by the Collector 0
the Port Of san Juan after the arrival Of tn
goods within the limits OF that port Fror
this moment the duties became payable a
upon imported uercha ndise- Now, while a
import into port almost necessarily in
wolves q prior export from another still, 1
determining the character Of the tax fmDosed
& Is in3ortant 70 consider whether the dut
be laid for the purpose Of adding TO the reve
nues of the country from which the expor
takes place or for the benefit Of the territor
into which they are imported BY the thr
section Of the Foraker act imposing dutie
upon merchandise coming into Porto Rico froI
the United States II is declared that 'wher
ever the legislative Assembly at Porto Ric