Iowa state bystander. [volume] (Des Moines, Iowa) 1894-1916, 1901-05-31
PORTO RICO NOT FOREIGN
Supreme Court Flies Opinion in ~ !.
Insular Cases.

- 800, : aoAi' -'in 90 IKE United
states supreme court yesterday hama.
ed down opinions covering all OF III.
issues on the new iasular pos session 5
which have been in controversy AZ.
though several of the decis;o,,s Az, VI
held the contestants ON certain iss,,as
raised. in the most important tlec;si,,,
that Of DOwnes against BidsyeII tns'ss
tice Brown announced the ssveen:ns
ceclsIon OF the court unfolding tia,
general attitude ana policy OF the
government up to the present time
The effect of this decision is 10 atf;,.r,
the constitutiosIaiity of the Fora,,4r5
act and to give congress power "a
deal with newly acquired terri.
tory in such manner as the lecisla.
tive branch may consider suitable for
the new territory The decision aEsn
has the effect of declaring that the
new insular possessions 10 not bv
virtue of the treaty of cessiou M.
quire all the privileges and rights ar
the constitution.
The main opinion was handed ,lov,,
in the De Lima case. Justice Brown
dealt first with the courts decision
on point of jurisdiction. holding thas
the court had jurisdiction
The De Lima case involved the i'm.
portation of goods into the United
States from Porto Rico after the
ratification of the treaty of Paris
and before the passage Of the Porto
Rican act.
De Lima &: Co., doing business IN
New York imported from San Juan
2. r.. during the months of June
and July, 1880, certain sugars. the
product OF Porto Rico. Upon these
sugars the collector at New York
demanded and collected about $13.o00
as customs duties.
De Lima & Co. sued RitiweH tba8
collector. as an individual in the s1-s
preme court of the state of New York
to recover back the duties thus paid.
amounting In all to S13.145. alleging
that they We're unlawfully demanded.
in violation of the constitution and
collected by duress, the collector ex-
acting the payment of duties as a 4
condition to the delivery of the SUI
gars.
Justice Brown said that whethe
the sugar imported from or into Por-
to Rico were dutiable depends upon
whether Porto Rico is foreign COINS
try. He held that the right to ac-
quire territory involved the right to Is
govern and control it by congress,
but he said that a country could not
be both foreign and domestic.
Justice Brown concluded as fol-
lows:
IF an act of congress be necessary
to convert foreign country into
domestic territory. the question atN
once suggests itself, what is the 1
character of legislation demanded fol.
this purpose? viii an act appropriate
ing money for it's purchase be sutfi-
cient? Apparently not. VIII an act
appropria ting the duties collected
upon imports to and from such coun-
try for the benefit of it's government
be sufficient? Apparently not. Will
acts making appropriations for its
postal service, for the establishment
of lighthouses, for the naintenn9ees
of quarantine stations, for eTectii5
public buildings, have that effe.f
VIII an act establishing a compile
local government, but with the I'll
ervation of a right to collect dls
upon commerce to adequate for SOU
purpose? None of these, nor all IL
gether Will be sufficient, if the cor
tention Of the government be souL
visions have been passed in connect
ton with Porto Rico, and it is in7
sisted that it is still foreign country]
within the meaning of the tariff laWssa
We are unable to acquiesce IN thiHs
assumption that territory may h4
made at the same time both fOreigt
and domestic.
''We are therefore of opinion that
a the time these duties were levied
Porto Rico was not foreign country
within the meaning Of the tariff laws
but 4 territory of the United States
that the duties were illegally exacteda
and that the plaintiffs are entitleds
to recover them back.
The Judgment of the circuit courts
for the southern district Of New York
manded to that court for further pro-a
| ceedings in consonance with this
opinion"
The decision in the Downes case
followed the history Of the dealings
of the United States with Porto Rico
a step farther. The case dealt with
the legality Of the exactions of duties
on goods imported from Porto Rico
| into New York after the passage Of
the Foraker act providing for duty5
upon goods shipped fr9m 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 eNaction was legal and consti-;
tutional,. and considered collectively9
is that Porto Rico was never after
the acquisition of that island for-s
eign territory; that until congress
acted upon the question no duty
could be collected but that as soon
as congress outlined a method of the
islands revenues that action became;
binding; in other words, that COM
gress has power under the constitu-
ton to prescribe the manner of COILS
Letting the revenues of the country'ss3
insular possessions, and has a right
70 lay duty on goods imported into
our insular possessions from the Unl-ssi
ted States or exported from them IN /
to the United States. 1t holds in
49,