The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1901-05-29
rive PORTO RICAN DECISIONS.

al duties collected on impOrtationS from
Porto Rico under the provisions of the
general tariff act are illegal:
First because Porto Rico by the treaty
oe cession. ratified April u, 1859, became
United States territory and ceased to be
a foreign country.
Second. because the general tariff law,
the Diugley act of July "A, 1897, provides
only for the levy Of duties upon al
articles imported from foreign countries
In the Downes case, cu the other hand,
in which the court sustains the govern
ment by majority of five to four, the
decision is:
First that Porto Rico Is a territory
appurtenant and belonging to the United
States, but not part of the United
States within the revenue clause of the
constitutions
Second, that the Foraker act of last
year, with its Is per cent tariff clause, is
constitutional so far as it imposes duties
upon imports from such island
All that is decided thus far by the
supreme court, therefore is this: First,
that Porto Rico is not foreign country
but is United States territory; second,
that the general tariff upon imports from
foreign countries ceased to apply to Porto
Rico after the treaty of cession; and,
third, by divided bench Of five to four
that congress has the constitutional right
to impose - per cent tariff tax upon
imports from Porto Rico notwithstand-
ing the constitutional provision that all
imposts and taxes shall be Uniform
throughout the United States
-Four members of the supreme bench
Chief Justice Fuller and Associate JUS
tees Harlan, Brewer and Peckham-hold
that under the constitutional provision
for uniform taxation neither the Dingley
tariff law nor the Foraker Is per cent tar
iff clause can legally apply to imports
from Porto Rico.
-Four orhers-Justices shiras, McKenna,
Gray and White-hold that both the
Dingley tariff law and the Foraker Is
per cent tariff are constitutional as re-
CARDS application to Porto Rican goods
The ninth, Justice Brown, holds that
the DingIey tariff taxes on Porto Rlcan
goods after the treaty Of cession were il
legal but that the Foraker 10 per cent
tariff tax on importations from Porto
Rico is constitutional and sound
Tt is to be noted that the court has
not yet passed upon the question, wheth-
er the Is per cent tariff upon exports
from the United States to Porto Rico is
constitutional Neither has it passed
upon the questions involving the civil
rights of the people of Porto Rico-such
as the right of trial by jury, the Wit of
habeas corpus, the right of freedom Of
press and Of religion, or the guarantees
of the thirteenth, fourteenth and fifteenth
amendments. in regard to slavery, i'll
voluntary servitude, properly rights ana
contracts. These questions are involved
in further cases awaiting the courts de-
cision
The De Lima case involved $13,c0) Of tar
if duties collected on sugar imported by
a New York firm from Porto Rico The
duties were collected under the pro-
visions Of the DingIey act, which pro-
vides for the collection of duties on all
articles imported from foreign coun-
tries" Consequently, the issue hung
upon the queston-Is Porto Rico a for
eign country?
Shiras, McKenna, Gray and White sus-
tanned the contention of the government,
and said-Yes.
Fuller, Harlan. Brewer, Peckham and
Brown said-No
The latter reviewed the decisions of the
court and the acts of the government
from The foundation Of the nation and
declared:
1T is evident that from 1862 the date of
Mr.. Galatins letter to the present time,
there has not been a shred of authority
except the dictum in the case Of Fleming
vs.. Page. for holding that a. district ceded
To and IN the possession of the United
states remains for any purpose a for
eiSn country
The summary of the five justices oppos-
Ing the governments contention in the
De Lima case then followed:
eve arc therefore OF the opinion that
at the time these duties were levied Porto
Rico was not a foreign country within
the meaning Of the tariff laws but a ter
rlory Of the United Safes, that the duties
were illegally eXacted and that the plaint-
MS are entitled to recover them back"
The second case, that of Downes versus
Collector Bidwen. of New York, involving
duties collected under the provisions Of
the Foraker Is Per cent tariff clause, hung
upon the question whether congress is
bound hy the constitution in governing
the territories. The decision in a nutshell
is that the Foraker act is constitutional,
notwithstanding that the constitution pro-
vides shat all inposts and taxes shall be
equal throughout the United States This
6elision likewise recognizes in congress a
nov power not before recognized by the
court, namely, the power to extend the
constitution by statutory act, and to ex-
tend if in whole or in part The court in
this divited opinion of five against four,
also erects Inc doctrine OF territory as