The age-herald., 1901-05-28
Decision Handed Down
 in InsuIar Cases ISLAND POSSESSIONS Are Not Foreign Territory But
 Subject to Congress SEVERAL DISSENTING OPINIONS Congress Has, Power to Regulate the Method and Manner of Collecting
 Revenues, and Impost Duties
 So Levied are Legal.
SEVERAL DISSENTING OPINIONS

Washington, May T.-In the United States Supreme Court today opinions were handed down in all but two of the cases involving the relations of the United States to the insular possessions. The two cases in which conclusion was announced were those known as the Fourteen Diamond Rings case and the second the Doley case. The latter dealt with phase of the Porto Rican ques- ton and the the diamond ring case in- wolves the right to the free importation of merchandise from the Philippines to the United States.
 The court adjourned until tomorrow when 1t Is presumed the remaining cases will be passed on. The two cases which attracted the greatest share of attention from the court were the Delima and the Downes case and of these two the opin- ion in the Downes case is considered the more far-reaching, as 1t affects our fu- ture relations whereas the Delima case deals with transitional phase of our in- sular relations. As the Delima case ap- peared to be quite sweepingly opposed to
 
 sons precipitately concluded the govern ment had been worsted all along the line. This view suffered a decided change when the conclusion was announced in the Downes case. The court was very evenly divided on both cases but political lines did not control.
 The Delima case involved the power of the government to collect duty on goods imported into the United States from Porto Rico after the ratification of the treaty of Paris and before the passage of the Porto Rican act. The court said the governments contention in this case was substantially claim that Porto Rico is foreign territory. The entire case turned upon that contention. The court held that the position was not well taken; that Porto Rico was not at the time foreign territory and that there fore the duty which had been collected must be returned.
 Power of Congress.
 The Downes case dealt with the legality of the exaction of duties on goods inn ported from Porto Rico into New York after the passage of the Foraker act providing for a duty upon goods shipped from the United States into Porto Rico and also on those shipped from Porto Rico to the United States. In this case the court held that such exaction was legal and constitutional. The point of the two opinions considered collectively is that Porto Rico was never after the acquisition of that island foreign terri tory; that until Congress acted upon the question no duty could be collected, but that as soon as Congress outlined method of controlling the islands reven- ues that action became binding; in other words, that Congress has power under the constitution to prescribe the manner of collecting the revenues of the coun- try's insuar possessions and has the right to lay a duty on goods imported Into our insular possessions from the United 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 to the same treatment as though they were shipped between New York and New Orleans.
 Justice Brown delivered these two opin- ions, and there were vigorous dissenting opinions in both. Tn the Downes case four of the nine members of the court united in an opinion characterizing in strong language the opinion of the ma jority in that case. In this opposing opinion the Chief Justice and Justices Harlan, Brewer and Peckham united and the Chief Justice and Justices Harlan
 
 Justices Gray, Shiras, White and Mc- Kenna, also. while agreeing with the con- clusion announced by Justice Brown, announced that they had reached the conclusion by .-.nerent lines of argument and Justices Gray. White and McKenna announced opinions outlining their re- spective positions. Justices Shiras. White and McKenna also dissented in the De- lima case, uniting in an opinion. Justice Gray also presented an independent and dissenting opinion in that case.
 The other cases decided by the court were those of Goetze vs. the United States involving duties on importations from Porto Rico and Crossman vs the imports being involved. In thess two cases the Delima decision was followed and assessment of duties prior to enact ment of legislation for the islands held illegal.
 The assessment of duties was partly sustained and partly upheld in the cases of Dooley and Armstrong vs. the United States. The duties were held legal when made during military occupation of Por- to Rico and prior to ratification of the peace treaty but illegal when levied after the peace treaty but prior to the passage of the Foraker act.
 The first case decided was that of Elias s. A. Delima ct al. plaintiffs in error, against George H. Bidwell, collector of the port of New