Little Falls herald., 1901-05-31

ceiye the attention Of the court. and
as it appeared to be quite sweepingly
opposed to the governments conten-
tions many persons precipitately ar
rived at the conclusion that the gov
ernment had been worsted all along
the line. This view suffered a de-
cided change when the conclusion
was announced in the Downes case.
The court was very evenly divided on
both cases, but political lines were
not at all controlling. -. @.-"-
Porto Rico Not Foreign Territory.
The De Lima case involved. the
power Of the government to collect a
duty on goods imported into the Unit
ed States from Porto Rico after the
ratification of the, treaty Of Paris and
before the passage Of the Porto Rican
act. The court said the governments
TALLY a claim that Porto Rico is for
eign territory. The entire case turned
upon that contention. The court held
that the position was not well taken;
that Porto Rico was not at the time
foreign territory and. that therefore
the duty which had been collected
must be returned. .....s 4 .. ...,. =:
The decision; in the :Downes case
followed the history of the dealings
Of the United States with Porto Rico
a step further. That case dealt with
the legality of the exaction of duties
on goods imported from Porto Rico
into New York after the passage of
the Foraker act providing for duty
upon goods shipped from the United
States into Porto Rico and also on
those shipped from Porto Rico to the
United States. In this case the court
held that such exaction was legal and
constitutional. I -
The point of the two opinions con-
sidered collectively is that Porto Rico
was never after the acquisition Of that
island foreign, territory; that until
congress acted upon the question no
duty could be collected, but that as
soon as congress outlined method
of controlling the islands revenues
that action became binding; in other
words. that congress has power under
the constitution to prescribe the man
ner of collecting the revenues of the
country's insular possessions and has
the right to lay a = >. = !. =.
, -: Duty on Goods Imported %@t
into our .insular possessions from the
United States or. exported from them
into the United States. 1t holds in
brief that for taxation purposes they
are not a part of the United States to
the extent that goods shipped i be.
tween their ports and the United
States are entitled to the same treat
ment as though they were shipped be-
tween New York and New Orleans.
Justice Brown delivered the courts
opinion in. both, and there were vi9or-
GUS dissenting opinions in both. 81 In
the Downes case four Of the nine
members Of the court united ia an
opinion chaEacterisi1g in strong Ian
guage the opinion of=the majority ii
that case. In this opposing opinion
the chief Justice and Justices Harlan.
Brewer and Peckham united. and the
chief. justice and Justice Harlan pre.
sented their views IN written form.
Justices Gray, Shiras, White and Nc
Kenna also, while agreeing with the
conclusion announced BY justice,
Brown, announced that they u hrLd
reached the conclusion by different
lines OF argument, and Justices Grav.
White and .MeKenna announced opin.
Ions outlining their respective posl.
tions. Justices Shiras, White and Mc.
Kenna also dissented In. the BE Lima
case, uniting in an opinion. Justice
Gray also presented IAN Independent
and dissenting opinion IN that case 3.
I The other cases decided ~. the
court were those Of Goetze Va. the
United States, involving duties On i'm
portations from Porto Rico. u and
ICrossman vs.. the United States. duties
on Hawaiian imports being involved.
In these two cases the De. Lima de.
cision was followed and assessment
OF duties prior 70 enactment Or legffsa-
lation TOR the islands held illegal.
s The assessnentEo of duties was part
ly susta aimed and partly upheld in the
Itthe United States