New-York tribune., 1901-01-12

levied is local tax was denied but it was called
Mr TAX for SgrI3S3a Geal purposes pea6 s,a ,
act act estahishing the rates of duty and dispos-
complete argument and said the Court woud sae sli
that on all goods from the United States TO Porto
on foreign goods, with the internal revenue of
Porto Rico added and that goods from Porto Rico
to the United States enter on the payment of Is
per cent of customs, with internal revenue only
facture. while goods from other countries paying
the Porto Rican internal revenue may come into
I'VE insist. he said, that this is not an import
duty. We object to the form under which the
Government seized goods and held them on
their arrival Porto Rico until we paid them
thDT n he te eontined oI tax An import is some
country. Porto Rico cannot be a foreign country
for its courts send appeals to this body. This is
therefore, not an import tax but an export tax
upon goods sent out Of these States, and there
duties; f Opinions Of the Court were read to show
laid on exports from one State to another to a
foESign I1aiiG,,,0s eogn;X Ky. NJ l,..,,.,.
could sId Be no export duty and said that there
ora Sed or sSe Tne %hen Porto Rico ceased 70 be
urged that the tax must be considered unconsttu, po
said, there could be many rates Of duty as there
are States or Territories for there is no provision
Argument was made that the tax was an export
lion Of the United States This tax said he. which
said to be local tax It Is Collected everyWhere. in
every state & and Territory How can i be called
| than that the tax Is laid first and appropriated
afterward in proving that this is a local tax? More
than half the general duties are he said collected
at New-York. yet II is not local tax, but tax
! MODIFIED DRED SCOTT CASE
We deny" he went on, that Congress has any
right TO impose any such tax upon the trade be-
| tween the States and Territories Congress may
| regulate commerce and may govern the territory,
| but under the guise of governing that territory
| may not govern the States of New-York or Penn
| syivanla When 1t places a tax upon the goods
taken TO Porto Rico II is governing the State. The
| Congress legislate must be subject to ali the
| limitations OF the Constitution
| Had II not been that African slavery was in
| VOWED said Mr.. Carlisle in conclusion there
would have been dissent from the decision in the
| Dred scott case Now, We have a with the
| negro eliminated. We have case where citizens
| are taxing their property into Territory OF the
| united states but in which there is conflicting
| point Ike slavery. The conditions are changed
| the advocates OF slavery; il is urged by the
advocates OF freedom IL II is true that there lies
| TINS arbitrary power I'm the Constitution we should
| De Delighted that II not discovered for more
| imam one hundred years, until had a great coun-
try made up OF free States and filled with free peo-
| pie He did not believe that the trainers of the
Constitution ever meant to give Congress unlimited
| When Mr.. Carlisle concluded Senator LINDSAY or
| kentucky, began the argument for the plaintiff in
| the next Of the Porto Rican cases that of the
United tSates against the New-York and Porto Rico
| Steamship Company. The case involves the aues-
tion of whether not Congress had the right 10
make the trade with the islands coasting trade OF
fnrsen trade.