Deseret evening news. [volume] (Great Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1867-1920, 1901-05-27

N"' tHAA'u NAhlth' u ~ NV SQtN TOT
tariff purposes and that the Foraker
act is constitutional. The Judgment Of
the circuit court was affirmed A dis
senting opinion was handed down by
Justice White, In which Justices
Shiras and McKenna ooncurred.
DOWNEs VS. BIDWELL.
Justice Brown next announced the
opinion in the case Of Downs Va Bid
well, relating to a shipment of oranges
from Porto Rico to New York after
the enactment OF the Foraker act. The
objections to the lower courts jursdic-
ton were oyerruled Justice Brown
then proceeded to show the difference
Of the question in this case from that
Involved in the first case decided this
difference being based on time and the
course taken by the executive and leg
islatIye branches Of the government.
He said there was considerable dvers-
enoe In the opinion of the court In the
past and too much weight should not
be given TO particular phases Of past
decisions, such as that referring to the
supreme authority OF Congress, as that
might refer to the supreme authority
Of Congress under the Constitution.
After analyzing the case Of Lpugh-
borough VS. Blake, the justice summed
up the conditions under which terri
tories were not In the same position as
states
JUSTICE McKENNA DiSsENTS.
Washington, May 2G--Justice Nc
Kenna delivered the dissenting opn-
ion OF the Supreme Court in the insu-
lar cases He was Joined IN that opin-
ion by Justices Shiras, White and
Gray
Justice McKenna went into a detailed
examination Of the cases cited In the
majority opinion. He maintained that
they did not show a clear current of
decision, but disclosed much divergence
VI VIEW nv ltAtilfh dtHo ~ INV AtA'A
that presidents not in cOnsonance with
the majority view were now dismissed
as dctum and not binding opinion.
He spoke Of the dangers attending
the dismissal OF judicial opinions as
"dictum" and Of the greater danger
when such course may interfere or
had interfered with the action Of
nation. Consistency and certainty Of
judicial opinions were Of the highest
importance, the justice declared, and
they should not be like the "exhalations
Of a marsh shining mlstly" Justice
McKenna's examination OF the many
presidents was exhaustive and almost
an hour was given to showing to what
extent the circumstances OF each case
bore on the present condition in Porto
Rico.
After examining cases cited by the
majority opinion, Justice McKenna said
that opinion proceeded on the theory
that the cesslon Of Porto Rico was alb
soute wheas that depended upon the
treaty Itself He referred to the effects
wrought upon the country at large by
decisions limiting the governmental au-
thority in respect to customs. The in
dustrial policy Of the country might Be
destroyed and those signing the dis
senting opinion could not acquesce in
a view that might lead to such an end.
In the opinion OF those dissentin~ JUS
tice McEenna said the judgment Of the
circuit should be affirmed,
Justice Gray followed with the brief
announcement of his dissent from the
majority opinion stating that he re-
garded II as irreconcilable with the
opinion Of the court in former cases.
JUSTICE WHITES OPINION.
Washington, May 27.--Justlce White,
in dissenting in the Dooley case made
the announcement that In the Downes
case. which questions the validity OF
ubNitN ltNith bH oidllStS iIipoiAtu lipil
Porto Rico after the Foraker act, the
majority Of the court would. as Mr.
White stated It, reverse Itself and hold
the duty valid. He said the opinion in
the Downes case. which thccourt would
announce later would thus lead to the
inconsistency Of the court deciding that
after the Foraker act Porto Rico
ceased to be part Of the United States
and before the Foraker act II was a
part Of the United States.
Justice White said the court would
later In the Downes case, hold that Con.
gress had the power under the Porto
Rico tariff act TO impose a tariff duty
on goods coming from Porto Rico. He
expressed himself as unable 10 conceive
on what theory they thus proceeded
and expressed the opinion that II was
due to confusion Of thought in the De /
Lima case.
It was settled law. by the decisions in