The St. Louis Republic., 1901-05-28

Washington, May 27.-Justice Brown to-
day delivered the opinion of the Supreme
Court of the United States in the case of
Downes VS.. Collector Bidwell Of the Port of
New York, in which suit was brought by
Downes to recover back duties to the
amount of s65s.35, eXacted and paid under
protest upon certain oranges consigned to
the plaintiff at New York. and brought
thither from the Port of San Juan In the
island Of Porto Rico during the month OF
November. 1900.
This case involved the question whether
merchandise brought into the Port of New
York from Porto Rico since the passage Of
the Foraker act is exempt from duty. not
M,thstanding the third section of that act.
per cent of the duties which are required
TO be levied collected and paid upon like
articles of merchandise imported from
The Circuit Court Of the United States
for the Southern District OF New York sus-
tafned the Government in this position in
imposing a duty.
The Supreme Court affirmed the opinion
of the Circuit Court. saying:
We are of opinion that the Island of
Porto Rico is q territory appurts-
s..,s. nnnt and nd. bsion.inE to the United
states within the revenue clause OF
the Constitutions; that the Foraker
act 10 constitutional 80 far ~ 1T im-
poses duties upon imports from such
island, and that the plaintiff cannot
recover back the duties exacted IN
this case.
very fully. Justice Brown early in his opin-
ion. outlined the distinction between this
case and the De Lima case. which had just
been decided. saying:
In the case OF De Lima ve Bidwell hold
that upon the ratifisation of the treaty Of peace
h, with S9ain; Ina Porto @ Rico ceased to & be foreign foreign
isle @ up upon nm merchandise brought from that island
OF the United States within that provision of
the Constitution which declares that 'all duties
the rnited ss II Porto ri Rico Be part OF
the United States, the Foraker act. imposing
,s o sf shs
clause but because by section . vessels bound
clear or pay duties in another
Ts ,sS noSs Clause. the ecds ,ss
srS Of their own force TO- our ne%y & &C
not answer the question It's solution '',l must be
found In the nature Of the government created
upon it by Congress. and in the decisions Of this
Formation of the Government.
the formation et the Goyernmen. and % the con-
posts and e.sises shall be Uniform throushOa.
he gsa syns that ,ss
tag or duty shall be laid on
snn to the ports Of Gne , sase &c over those of
ssss s. to eesr C
IN anoshsr" " In short. he concluded on that
ana sSesr nss 'AeF
The scausition Of territory and the formation
so .. SuUies laid down % the Following s's genera
Esiminsssnx. then. from the opinion Of this
esYr ~ sxpsessions unnscsss.Y to Ia The dspo- %
@ q. g enact point decided IN each shs fc-
fowinc propodaons may be considered as es-
..sa... :Is e. s.ssss %,thia sss judicial elsa:s
p: ;s.ns 81 s,ns gt.sss in
That Tit sv,.ss are not States ,c Stin e.
ss:es sss SsiidiS q a states statute is drawn
:. mat the District of co.umhia. and the Ter
:s 1 AZ sn Pow.n eo sas. With p. 70 e
Ownership. disposition and inheritance OF prop
e.u,s e the tie aas for
Ct g. es mt sna tn
s. Thas the Constitution. does not apply TO
81 ,S pToHSe or
tris,s Ssfoee eonsuiar tribunals without the in
se Sh.1 81 ssna s or "a. been
sorney extended b cons,ess 70 Terrscsass
can enact laws inconsistent Herewith.
Dred Scott Case.
In his opinion, Justice Brown referred at
-
ney In the Dred Scott case. giving especial
consideration to the sentiment expressed by
him that there is no power given by the
establish or maintain colonies bordering on
the United States. or at a distance. to be
ruled and governed at its own pleasure; and
ff a new State Is admitted 1t needs no fur
ther legislation by Congress. because the
Constitution itself defines the relative rights
and powers and duties Of the State. and
the citizens Of the State. and the Federal
Government. But no power is given to &C.
quire a territory to be held and governed
permanently in that character"
Justice Brown expressed the opinion that
It was unfortunate in view Of the excited
condition of the country at the time the
Scott opinion was rendered. Just before the
beginning of the Civil War. that the Chief
Justice had felt impelled to discuss the
question upon its merits. ut is,' he said,
'suh1cient to say that the country did not
acuuiesce in the opinion, and that the Civil
War. which shortly thereafter followed, pro-
duced such changes IN judicial. as well az
public sentiment. as to seriously impair the
He added:
The power to prohibit slavery in the Terri
duties duties upon .erasorial produets and depends upon
such diferen. provisions Of .he Constitu.ion that
s.. as we srosy
sns ss e shs Claim a 's Quite
that &. sss S.,siss ] g .s
ceptfoEdl class OF property.
Powers of C0ngfess.
Taking up the case in hand. the Justice
continued his opinion. saying:
The practical Interpretation put BY congress
upon the Constitution has long been continued
and uniform to the effect that the Constitution
is applicable to territories acquired by purchase
or conquest only when and 20 Tar as Congress
shall SO direct Notwithstanding its duty to
publican form Of goyernment." Congress did not
Eitories Of Louisiana. Florida. the N9rthwe.t
Michigan, Illinois and Wisconsin. and stin more
recently In the case Of Alaska, to establish q
form Of government bearing Q much greater an
aiosy to 4 British crown colony than republican
state Of America, and to vest the legislative
power either in a Governor and Council or q
Governor and Judges. TO be appointed BY the
We are. also Of opinion that power to acauf. :
govern such territory, but to prescribe upon What
terms the United States will receive Its inhab.
itante and what their status shall be In what
Chief Justice Marshall termed the American
There seems to be no middle ground betvsst
this position and the doctrine that II their IN
A vnoth f0nfnAdfntNlv m