The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-01-12

facture. while goods from other countries
paying the Porto Rico internal revenue
may come into this country without other
internal revenue tax. I'VE insist" he
said, that this is not an import duty.
We object to the form under which the
government seized our goods and held them
on their arrival at Porto Rico until we
paid them tribute in the form OF a tax.
AN EXPORT TAX.
IAN import is something" he said. com
ing from a foreign country. Porto Rico
cannot be a foreign country. for its courts
send appeals to this body. This is there
fore not an import tax. but an export tax
upon goods sent out of these States and
there are two specific prohibitions against
such export duties. Opinions Of the Su-
preme Court were read to show that that
tribunal had held that no duty might be
laid on exports from one State to another
as to a foreign country
Following this Mr.. Carlisle argued that
there could be no export duty and said that
there must be fixed some time when Porto
Rico ceased to be foreign territory and
even with that point he urged hat the
tax must be considered unconstitutional.
III Congress could levy export duties, he
said. there could be as many rates of duty
as there are States or Territories for there
is no provision for uniformity or expert
taxation.
Argument was made that the tax was
an export tax, and as such indirect viola
ton of the Constitution of the United
States. This tax. he SAID, which under TINS
law is just as general as a tariff law. Is
said to be a local tax. 1t is collected every
where, I'm every State and Territory How
can ii be called local? Is the fact that
proceeds Of this tax are to be used for
certain purposes of more consequence than
that the tax is laid first and appropriated
afterward. in proving that this Is a local
tax? More than half the general duties
orS ha CofI anlo0fa6 ar NaU York Var
1t is not a local tax, but a tax the proceeds
OF which may be used everywhere.
I'VE deny" he went on, that Congress
has any right to impose any such tax upon
the trade between the States and Terri
tories. Congress may regulate
and may govern the Territory, but under
the guise of governing that Territory may
not govern the States of New York or
Pennsylvania. When ii places a tax upon
the goods taken to Porto Rico it is gov
erning the State. The limitation must fol-
low every power
The power of Congress TO legislate must
be subject to all the limitations of the
Constitution. Had it not been that African
slavery was involved" said Mr.. Carlisle
dissent from the decision in the bred Scott
case. Now we have a case with the negro
eliminated. We have a case where citizens
are taking their property into a Territory
Of the United States, but in which there is
no conflicting point like slavery. The con-
ditions are changed. Then the unlimited
power of Congress was urged by the advo-
Gates of slavery; now 1t is urged by the
advocates of freedom. If il is true that
there lies this arbitrary power in the Con-
stitution we should be delighted that it was
not discovered for more than one hundred
years, until we had a great country 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 power over the lives
and property of the people.
When Mr.. Carlisle concluded Senator
lindsay, of Kentucky, began the argument
for the plaintiff in the next of the Porto
Rican cases. that of Illus VS.. the New York
and Porto Rican Steamship Company. The
case is one involving the question of wheth-
err Congress had the right to make the trade
with the Islands coasting trade or foreign
trade.