The times. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1890-1903, 1901-02-17

t..or1l concern? 1t can be justified only on
the grounds that the Constitution requires
the lasws OF these subjects to be uniform
throughout the United States, and that
sI,e territories are within the United
States and parts OF the United States and
because the subjects themselves are ma
tfonal ard permanent in their character,
in local or municipal, and that the legis-
iation ugson them must therefore be uni
form and harmonious all over the country,
even though those words were not used in
the Constitution
Under the Constitutional requirement
that legislation must be uniform through
ont the United States. a tax which would
place a discriminating duty Of Is per cent.
OF, the trade between Porto Rico and the
United States would obviously be uncon-
stitutional If the court accepted Mr.. Car
Isles view that the Constitution extends
qnired by this Government, and as such
would not permit Congress or the Presi-
dent, who derive their powers solely from
the Constitution, to make laws or impose
taxes that would be unequal and discrini-
Mating.
But in the event that the Supreme Court
should hold that Porto Rico was not q
plTt of the United States. a contention
which. however untenab!e it might appear,
was nevertheless one which might con-
the tax was then one which was, never
t7leless, unconstitutional. for it is specif-
ca4ly provided in the Constitution that it
sErll not be within the power of Congress
TO levy am export duty on goods sent to
foreign countries.
In constructing this clause OF the Con-
stitutsop Chidf Justice Marshall laid it
down that if the tax or duty We're collect
States by revenue cutters which awaited
on the nigh seas, TINT though the tax
were not collected at the port from which
the goods We're shipped, yet, as the tax
was collected on goods sent from the
United States. it was an export tax and
would be so even If it were collected on
arrival at the ports of foreign countries.
Mr.. Carlisle said further that if the
United States should, by treaty Or other
arrangement with Great Britain, Germany
OF France, secure the privilege Of main
tanning officers at their ports with authori-
ty to collect certain percentage upon the
value of all goods brought there from this
country before tnes goods could be de-
livered to the owner or consignee, would
any one contend flor a moment that such
a tax was not upon exports? The case
supposed is precisely the case We have
to consider in Porto Rico. If Congress
or figs exported from the State of their
production, it can ruin the production of
any State in America, and 1t was to pre-
vent this very thing that the clause was
Inserted in the Constitution which declares
that mo tax or duty shall be laid on ar
ticles exported from amy State, not that
Congress shall not do so or the President
shall not do So but positively and broadly
1t shall not be done by anybody.
But Porto kico is of necessity either
part of the United States or it is not. II
it is. the necessity for uniform laws under
the Constitution makes a discriminating
duty of u per cent. Unconstitutional If
Porto Rico is not a, part of the United
States then it is foreign country, and
rs such ali goods sent to it from the
United States are eSports5-and il exports
a duty cannot be levied ON them by Con-
gress or the President
How will the Supreme Court decide? To
us t has always seemed that there could
be no doubt of the unconstitutionalsty of
the Porto Rican tariff act.