The Montgomery advertiser., 1901-05-28
HAS RIGHT TO
 FIX DUTIES Power of Congress as to
 E Possessions. SUPRE sE COURTS RULING
The Pol 5 Rican Act Declared
 slstitutional.
Decision in the Downes Case Affects the Future Relations of the United States and Its
 Dependencies.

Washington, May 27.--In the limited
 States Supreme Court today opinions
 were handed down in all but two of
 the eases involving the relations of the United States to it's insular possessions.
 The two eases in which conclusions
 were not announced were those known
 as the fodrteen diamond rings case
 and the second, the Dooley case. The
 latter deals with a phase of the Porto
 Rican question and the diamond rings
 case involves the right to the free i'm
 portatior of merchandise from the
 Philippines to the United States.
 The court adjourned until tomorrow,
 when It is presumed the remaining
 cases will be passed upon.
 The two cases which attracted the
 greatest share of attention from the
 court were the DeLima and the Downes
 cases and of. these two the opinion in
 the Downes case Is considered the more
 far reaching, as it affects our future
 relations. where the De Lima case
 deals with a transitional phase of our
 insular relations. As the DeLinia
 case appeared to be quite sweepingly
 opposed to the goverpn1ent's conten-
 tions, many persons prec,pitately con
 cluded the government had been worst
 ed all along the line. This view sui
 fered a decided change when the con-
 clusion was announced in the Downes
 case. The court was very evenly
 divided on both cases, but political
 lines did not contLpl. ...f
 DeLima and Downes Cases.
 The DeLima case involved the power
 of the government to collect a duty on goods imported into the United States
 from Porto Rico after the ratification
 of she Treaty of Paris, and before the passage of the Porto Rican act. The
 court said the governments contention
 In this case was substantially a claim
 that Porte Rico is foreign territory.
 The entire ease turned upon that con-
 tention. The court held that the nosl-
 tion was not well taken; that Porto Rico was not at the time foreign ter rftory, and that therefore the duty which had been collected must be re- turned. The DoWnes csse dealt with
 the legality Of the exaction of duties on goods imported frem Porte Riee .:.s5 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 ship ped from Porto Rico to the United States. Tn this case the court held that such exaction was legal and con- stitutioual. The point of the two opinions considered collectively is that Porto Rico was never after the ac- euisition, foreign territory; that until Congress acted upon the question no duty could be collected as Congress outlined a method of controlling the islands revenues that action became binding; in other words, that Congress has power under the constitution to prescribe the manner of collecting the revenues of the country's insular pos session, and has the right to lay a duty on goods imported into our insular possessions from the Unitee States or exported from them into the United States It holds. in brief. that for taxation purposes they are not part of the United States to the extent that goods shipped between their ports and the United States are entitled 70 the same treatment as though they were shipped between New York and NeE Orleans Justice BSown delivered these two opinions. and there were various dissenting opinions.
 The Case Split Up.
 In the Downes case four of the nine members of the court united Tn an opin ion characteCiZing in strong language the opinion of the majority in 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 Mo kenna also. while agreeing with the al nounced by Justice Brown, announced that they had reach ed tho conclusion by different lines of and Justices Gray, White and McKenna announced opinions out lining their respective positions. Jus tices Siiras, White and McKenna also dissented m the De Lima Case, uniting in an opinion. Justice Gray also pre- sented an independent and dissenting opinion in that case.
 Following Justice Browns opinion on the Downes case, Justice White de- Iivered an opinion in which he said Justices Shiras ard McKenna united, | in the decree affirming the Judgment of the Downes case, but plac- ing 1t on grounds which, he said. were not only different from, but in con- Hict with, those expressed by Justice Brown.
 The sole and only Issue lsp sald JuS- tice White, Had Porto Rico. at the time of the passage of the act in ques- tion, been incorporated into and be- come an integral part of the United States?" Justice White affirmed that the rule of international law was that the relation which an acquired country would bear to the acquiring country in the absence of treaty stipulations, was to be determined bS that country con- formably to it's institutions. The | United States possessed the same pow ers on this subject as any other nation. i
 Justice White went into the history of the United States and of its acquired | territories in support of his assertion | that, our history from the beginning | had manifested that this power was possessed by the United States. An of aIr aEht to ac- | auiRe territory coupled with ea1teR- tien that when acquired, the territory |