Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1901-05-30

Washington, May Zo.--lH Ch0 CAi'ON
States supreme court yesterday opin-
ions were handed down in all but two
of the cases before that court involV-
ing the relation of the United States
to it's insular possessions. The two
cases in which no conclusion was an
nounced were those known as the four
teen diamond rings case and the Sec
ond of the Dooley cases. The unde-
cided Dooley case deals with phase
of the Porto Rican question and the
diamond rings case involves the right
to free importation of merchandise
from the Philippines to the United
States. The original intention OF the
court had been to adjourn for term
after yesterdays sitting, but the dis
cussion of cases passed on took about
five hours so the court adjourned until
today when it is presumed the remain
ing cases will be passed on.
OF the several cases decided yester-
day the two which attracted the great
est share of attention from the court
were what is known as the De Lima
case and that known as the Downes
1000 QUA of +boca two tho OOiniOn in
the Downes case is considered the
most far-reaching, as it affects our fut-
,ure relations. whereas the De Lima
case dealt with the transitional phase
of our insuiar relations. The De Lima
case was the first to receive the at
tention of the court and as it appeared
to be quite sweepingly opposed to the
governments contentious, many per-
sons precipitately arrived at the con-
clusion that the government 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 po-
litical lines were not at all controlling.
The De Lima 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 thu
claim that Porto Rico is foreign terri
tory The entire case turned upon
that contention. The court hetl that
the poSitiC was not we'll taken AMI
that Porto Rico was not at the tld,e
foreign territory and that therefore
the duty which had been collected
mus. be returned.
The decision in the Downes case fol
lowed the history of the dealings of the
United States with Porto Rico ste
further. That case dealt with the
legality of the eXactiOn of duties or
goods imported from Porto Rico int
New York after the passage of the
Foraker act providing for a duty upor
goods shipped from the United States
into Porto Rico and also on thO5.
shipped from Porto Rico to the 7 nteC
States. In this case the court helt
that such exaction was legal and con
StitutiOnal.
The point of the two opinions con
sidered collectively is that Porto Rice
was never, after the acquisition &C tna
island foreign territory; that unit
congress acted upon the question NJ
duty could be collected, but that a.
soon as congress outlined a method .
controlling the islands and revenue:
that action became binding; in othe,
words, that congress has power undel
the constitution to prescribe the man
ner of collecting the revenues OF thu
country's insular possessions and ha
the right to lay a duty on goods i'm
ported into our insular possession
from the United States or exported
from them into the United States.
1t holds, in brief, that for taxation
purposes they are not a part of tn
United States to the extent that good
shipped between their ports and tn
United States are entitled to the SAM
treatment as though they wer
shipped between NEW 1OTh anu NSN
Orleans.
Justice Brown delivered the court
opinion in both and there were vigoI
our dissenting opinions in both. Il
the Downes case, four of the min
members of the court united in thei
opinion, characterizing in strong lar
guage the opinion of the majority il
that case. In this opposing opinion
Chief Justice Fuller and Justices Hal
Ian Brewer and Peckham were united
and the chief justice and Justice Hal
Ian presented their views in writtel
form. Justices Gray, Shiras, Whit
and McKenna also, while agreein!
with the conclusion announced by Jus
tice Brown, announced that they ha
reached their conclusion by differen
lines of argument, and Justices c. y
White and McKenna announced opin
ions outlining their respective pos
tions. Justices Shiras, White and MG