Warren sheaf. [volume] (Warren, Marshall County, Minn.) 1880-current, 1901-05-30

illegally eXacted and that the plaintiffs
are entitled to recover them back.
"The Judgment Of the circuit court for
the Southern district OF New York Is there
fore reversed and the case ,remanded to
that court for further proceedings in con-
sonance with this opinion"
Dissenting Opinion.
Justice McKenna delivered the dis
senting opinion of the supreme court
in the insular cases. He was Joined
in that opinion by Justices Shiras
and White @@@ X
Justice McKenna went into de-
tailed examination Of the cases cited
in the majority opinion. He main
tanned that they did not show clear
current of decision, but disclosed
much divergence of view. " He re-
ferred also to the fact that prece-
dents not in consonance with the
majority view were now dismissed as
dictum and not binding opinion.
See. Danger In Position. e..
He spoke of the dangers attending
the dismissal of judicial opinion as
"dictum" and of the greater danger
when such course may interfere, or
u
nation. Consistency and certainty of
judicial opinion was of the highest
Importance, the Justice declared. and
they should not be like the "exhala-
tons of a marsh. shining mistily"
Justice McKenna's examination of
the many presidents was exhaustive
and almost an hour was given to
showing to what extent the circum-
stances of each case bore on the
present condition in Porto Rico. o.
After examining cases cited by ma
jority opinion Justice McKenna said
that opinion proceeded on the theory
that the cession of Porto Rico was alb
solute, whereas that depended upon
the treaty itself. He referred to the
effects wrought upon the country at
large by decisions limiting the govern
mental authority in respect to Gus
toms: The industrial policy of the
country might be destroyed and those
signing the dissenting opinion could
not acquiesce in view that might lead
to such an end. In the opinion of those
dissenting, Justice McKenna said, the
judgment of the circuit court should
be affirmed.
Justtce Gray Also Dissents.
Justice Gray followed with the brief
announcement of his dissent from the
majority opinion, stating that he re-
garded it as irreconcilable with the
opinion of the court in former cases.
The Dooley Case.
Justice Brown also announced the
opinion of the court in the case OF
Dooley VS.. the United States, in
volving the validity of duty levied
on goods imported into Porto Rico
from the United States between the
date of military occupation and the
taking effect of the Porto Rican tar
if act. The court held that there
could be no doubt of the validity of
the duties levied by virtue of Gen.
Miles order prior to the ratification
Of the treaty of peace. 1t placed this
right on the ground of military ne
cessity.
With reference to duties levied
after ratification of the peace treaty
the court said different rule applied
and it held these duties invalid. JUS
tices Gray, Shiras, McKenna and
White dissented, the latter delivering
the opinion.
The Goethe and Crossman Cases.
In the case of Goethe VS.. the United
States and Crossman VS.. the United
States, brought here from the circuit
court for the Southern district of New
York to test in the Goethe case the
validity OF the levy Of duty on an i'm
portation of tobacco into the United
States after the ratifica ton of the
treaty and before the passage of the
Porto Rican act and in the Crossman
case duty on liquors imported into
Hawaii after annexation but before
the taking effect Of the act providing
a government for Hawaii, the court
reversed the judgments for the reasons
cited in the Delma case, holding the
levy of duties was unconstitutional.
Justice Whites Opinion.
Justice White, in dissenting in the
Dooley case, made the announcement
that in the Downs case. which ques-
tions the validity of duties levied on
oranges imported from Porto Rico
after the Foraker act, the majority
of the court would, "a Mr.. White stat
ed it, reverse itself and hold the duty
valid. He said the opinion in the
Downs case, which the court would an
nounce later, would thus lead to the
inconsistency of the court deciding
that after the Foraker act Porto RicO
ceased to be a part of the United
States and before the Foraker act it
was part of the United States.
Justice White said the court would
later in the Downs case hold that con-
gress had the power under the Porto
Rican tariff act to impose tariff duty
on goods coming from Porto Rico. He
expressed himself as unable to con-
ceive on what theory they thus pro-
ceeded and expressed the opinion tina
it was due to confusion of thought in
the Delima case.