The times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1897-1901, 1901-01-12

q Governor of a State, but ii could not
require the Governor of a State to surren-
der d fugitive to the Governor Of Ter
ritory. Under the system advocated by
the Government there would be seen the
anomaly of a court in territory outside
the United States granting naturalization
to Inhabitants OF the territory who had
never lived in the United States. And so
in the matter of direct and Indirect lakes,
even il the Constitution did not require
them to be uniformly laid throughout the
United States it would be necessary so to
do in order to make a harmonious whole
Reviewing the laws imposing indirect
taxes MIR Carlisle said that with the eX-
ception of the first one enacted they all
proceeded upon the assumption that they
applied alike to States and Territories. But
now, with regard TO the Porto Rican act.
1T was claimed that the Territories are
not part of the United States. Il that
were true he said it would result in
free trade between Porto Rico and the
other Territories o: the United States. But
the law imposed the same duties upon
goods imported into Porto Rico whether
they go from New Mexico or from New
York. 1t was the first time, he asserted,
that the claim had ever been made that
all the great body Of legislation which has
been formingsf0r more than one hundred
years, TSeds0lHB A0G regulation Ol COu-
merce. bankruptcy. direct and indirect
taxes. had been in violation of either the
spirit or letter of the Constitution. Could
Congress he asked under the provision of
the Constitution, authorizing it to regu-
late commerce. take a mans property
without compensation? The power to gov
era Territories was not absolute or un-
limited but must be considered in view
of all the provisions of the Constitution.
If that were not the rule of construction,
then the court and Congress had been
wrong for one hundred years.
Mr. Carlisle denied the contention of the
Attorney General that the law was local
legislation. It had general application
and affected the rights of the citizens
generally throughout the United States.
There was a great difference between a
local tax and a tax for local purposes.
That the revenue derived from the col
lection of the tax went TO the treasury of
Porto Rico did not suffice to make it a
local measure. Congress acted in ma
tional and sovereign capacity in the pas
sage of the bill.
The Principle of Uniformity.
After the luncheon recess Mr. Carlisle
proceeded Since the beginning of the
Government. he said, no tariff act had
ever been passed except under the opera
tion of the principle of uniformity as they
understood it. The exception noted by
the Attorney General in his argument. in
the act of 1888 was the exemption of pei
tries or other goods brought into the
United States over the land border.
Heretofore no goods were allowed to be
imported at ali into the United States by
land. So he did not think the Court would
place much stress upon that exception.
Counsel then considered the provisions
of the Porto Rican act relating to the
collection of duties upon goods in the
Porto Rican trade and to the operation of
the courts, which he read to the Court
The act. he said, contained no provision
that goods imported into Porto Rico from
abroad shall, if sent thence to the United
States, pay the internal revenue tax laid
on those articles Of produce in the United |
States. They would pay the internal rev.
enue tax laid in Porto Rico, which the |
Attorney General had informed the Court |
was but a fraction of that of the United |
States, but coming here would pay no |
sessed against all goods coming from Por- |
10 Rico.
The assault made against the law, Mr.. |
Carlisle said was based upon the conten-
tion that the tax laid by it was not q |
tax on imports into Porto Rico, but a tax
upon exports from the States, ana that !
was prohibited by the Constitution; neith-
ef the fFeSiQeHl nor anyone else COulQ 7
lay a tax on exports from the States. /
The Supreme Court. In California case, |
had decided that the words in the Con- /
stitution applied to exports from one I
State to another. as well as from State I.
TO foreign port. In the case of Wood /!
ruff. Mr.. Justice Miller. reviewing the en-
tire subject, held for the court that i'm /
ports meant goods brought from a foreign |
port, and exports. goods shipped from /
port in the States. whether they
and that upon these exports no tax ooIld
be laid.
1t would be strange, counsel said, il the
after making stringent pro-
vision in the Constitution against taxing /
exports from the States to a foreign /
country. should have failed to protect ex-
the power of Congress to impose ruinoas
taxes But If it were held that the pro-
hibiticn applied only to exports to for
eign country, then the Government must
fix some time when Porto Rico should |
cease to oe a foreign territory. In any
event a tax was unconstitutional and vcid.
by whomsoever laid.
Character of the Tax.
The Solicitor General In his argument
had said that the tax was part of the
time an import duty and part of the time
an export duty. 1t was an export duty
when the goods were shipped from Porto
Rico. an import tax when shipped to
Porto Rico. But it was an export duty