The Washington times., 1901-08-30
That Undecided Philippine case.

There is considerable speculation as
to what the decision OF the Supreme
Court will be in the Philippine case.
which the law officers of the Govern
ment have at all times claimed is ex-
actly parallel with the Downes case.
In the Philippine case a returned SOL
der brought with him a number Of dia-
mond rings, which were seized by GUS
toms officials for the non payment Of
duties The question is whether arti-
Giles coming from the Philippines are
subject to duties as foreign goods.
1t is in no way remarkable that there
should be a great deal of uncertainty
as to what the action of the court will
be. If the case were not distinguished
in some way from those decided at the
last term of the court. there is no APP
parent reason why it should not have
been passed upon along with the others.
Courts sometimes do things that are
wholly inexplcable to outsiders. and
particularly to the laity. Still. it is a
perfectly obvious proposition that when
several cases are Jumped together. and
submitted in a batch. if they all in
volve exactly the same principles, they
naturally would all be decided together.
But the Philippine case was held over,
and Notwithstanding the Governments
contention that it is the same as the
Downes case, we are forced to conclude
that the court is inclined to differen-
tate 1t from any of those that were
determined.
The division of the court was of such
a character and the reasoning by which
different Justices reached the same con-
clusion SO varied, saying nothing of
the fact that one Justices mental pro-
cesses seemed to place him on both
sides of the same question, that il is al
together unsafe to attempt to forecast
the probable decision In the Philippine
case from the conclusions reached in
the others. Upon its face the Philippine
case seems more like the De Lima case
than that of Downes. In the De Lima
case duties were collected upon mer-
cfandise imported from Porto Rico
prior to any Congressional action on
Sfle subject of revenue. The court held
that Porto Rico became American ter
ritory by the Treaty of Paris. and hence
that the duties were illegal In the
Downes case the duties were collected
under the Foraker Payne tariff, and the
cour: held that the island was neither
strictly foreign nor strictly American
territory, but territory over which the
Unised States had jurisdiction; that
Congress was not bound by the unifor-
nifty clause of the Constitution in en-
acting a revenue law for the island.
and that the Foraker Payne act was
constitutional
-Four of the Justices seemed TO be of
the opinion that regardless of the spe-
cial tariff act Porto Rico was foreign
territory" within the meaning of the
customs laws of the United States, for
they held that goods coming from Por-
to Rico prior to the enactment of the
Foraker Payne tariff were dutiable as
foreign; but after the passage of that
act the duties collected must conform
thereto. But Justice Brown, whose vote
was decisive in both cases. held in the
DE Lima case that no duties were col
leetibie because the island was Ameri-
cali territory. and in the Downes case
the same Justice held that the duties
collected under tie Foraker Payne act
were lawful. because the island was not
American territory. The Justice did not
put it In exactly these terms, but what
he said amounted to the same thing
IT may be entirely clear in Justice
Browns mind how certain territory can