The daily morning journal and courier., 1901-12-03
teen diamond rings which are involved


 l in the case. He afterwards brought
 these rings while still in the service oi l the United States, aboard the United States vessel transporting his regiment \ to San Francisco, wliere he was mus I tered out. Later he came with the rings to Chicago, where the rings were seized by the customs officers under the l claim that the Philippine Islands were foreign territory, and that merchandise brought from those islands to the Unit | ed States was subject to customs duties i which were not paid by Pepke. Pepke set up the claim that the imposition of i duties upon merchandise under the cir | cumstances was contrary to the consti- tuition of the United States and in vio- lation of his rights as a citizen. | The case came to the supreme court from the district court of the United States for the northern division of Illi- nois. In that court the facts set up in Pepke's plea were admitted by demur- Ter filed by the United States, and that , court sustained the demurrer, overrul- ing the plea and entering judgment against the merchandise thus seized, and directing that it be sold in accord- ance with the law, and from this decis- ion the present writ of error was pros ecuted.
 DUTIES ON GOODS SENT INTO
 PORTO RICO UPHELD.
 The supreme court also decided to-day the second of the Dooley cases, involv- ing the constitutionality of the law of April 12 providing for the collection of duty on articles shipped from the Unit ed States into Porto Rico. The decision was rendered by Justice Brown and sus- tained the government.
 Justice Browns opinion held that as Porto Rico is not foreign territory the goods shipped to Porto Rico are not ex- ports, but whether exports or imports, the wide range of congress in the mat ter of taxation was sufficient for a con- tingency of this character. At best, he said, the duty was a temporary eXpedi- ent, and as it was explicitly provided in the Foraker act that the Porto Rican legislature could change the character of the enactment it was held that the Foraker act was merely legislation in the interest of Porto Rico.
 The Foraker act was sustained on the grounds laid down in the Downs case, NAStiAtN the last term. The decision of the low CT court was affirmed. Justice Brown explicitly said that the opinion was not to be construed as justification of ex- port duties.
 Justice White concurred in the result, but delivered an independent decision. The chief justice and Justices Harlan, Brewer and Peckham united in a dis senting opinion, which was handed down by the chief justice. They held that the duty imposed was eport in character, and that the fact that it was levied for the benefit of Porto Rico did not change it's character.
 This case grows out of the imposition of tariff duties on goods shipped from New York to Porto Rico from May l, 1900, to October 23 of the same year, un- der the act of April 12, 1900, providing revenues and civil government for Porto Rico, the sum involved being S1,- | 433. This money was collected at Porto ' Rico on goods shipped to that port by { Smith & Co., to their agent, who | was in San Juan. The collections were imposed under that part of the law in question which provides that "all mer- COHliHS liilO | Ipi So isiSu Lhoiii the United States shall be entered at the several ports of entry upon pay nent of 15 per cent of the duties which are required to be levied, collected and paid upon like articles of merchandise imported from foreign countries into the United States under the Dingley tariff law"
 Dooley. Smith & Co. brought suit in he circuit court of the United States 'or the southern district of New York, 70 recover the money paid by them, which they declared had been wrong 'ully collected at San Juan. To their petition the United States demurred on he ground that the court had no juris- fiction of the subject of the action and m the further ground that the com ,laint did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Judge 4acombs, of the circuit court of New York, sustained the demurrer upon the econd point The case was carried rom his court to the supreme court.
 The contention on the part of Dool- y's counsel was that congress had not he power under the constitution to im- ,ose taxes or duties such as were levied lnder the act of April 12 upon articles aken into Porto Rican ports from oth- r parts of the United States, Porto