The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1901-12-03

chandise and articles shall be entered at
the several ports OF entry free Of duty
And by Section 4, the duties and taxes
collected in Porto Rico in pursuance OF
this act. shall not be covered into
the general fund of the treasury, but shall
be held as a separate fund and shall be
placed at the disposal OF the President 10
be used for the government and benefit of
Porto Rico until the government OF Porto
Rico herein provided for, shall have been
organized. when all moneys therefore col
lected under the provisions hereunto un-
expended, shall be transferred 10 the local
treasury of Porto Rico
Now. there can be no doubt whatever,
that If the legislative assembly OF Porto
Rico should. with the consent of Congress,
lay a tax upon goods arriving from ports
OF the United States such tax, II legally
imposed. would be a duty upon imports
To Porto Rico and not upon exports from
the United States; and, we think, the same
result must follow If the duty be lald Dy
Congress in the interest and for the benefit
of Porto Rico.
THE truth is that, in imposing the duty
as a temporary expedieut with a proviso
that il may be abolished by the legislative
assembly Of Porto Rico at its Will, Con-
gress thereby shows that ii is undertaking
10 legislate for the island temporarily and
only until the local government Is put INTO
operation. The mere fact that the duty
passes through the hands Of the revenue
officers Of the United States is immaterlal
in view of the requirement that II shall not
be covered into the general FUND OF the
treasury, but be held as a separate tund
for the government and benent or Porto
Rico.
THE action is really corelative to that
Of DOwnes versus Bidwel, in which we
held that Congress could lawfully impose
a duty on imports from Porto Rico, not
withstanding the provision of the COnstitu-
tiOn that all duties, imports and excuses
shall be uniform throughout the United
States.
1T is true that this conclusion was
reached by a majority of the court by diff
ferent processes Of reasoning, but ii Is none
the less true that, in the conclusion that
certain provisions of the Constitution did
apply TO Porto Rico and that certain 9TH
ers did not, there was no difference OF
opinion.
1T is not intended by this oDinion to
intimate that Congress may Law an ex-
port tax upon merchandise carried from
one State to another. While this does not
seem TO be forbidden by the express words
of the Constitution, it would be extremely
difficult, if not impossible, TO lay such
tax without a violation of the first para
graph of Article l. Section s. that all du-
ties, tmpOsts and excuses shall be uniform
throughout the United States There is
wide difference between the full and para
mount power of Congress in legislating for
a Territory in the condition of Porto Rico
and its power with respect to the States
which is merely incidental to its right to
regulate interstate commerce. The ques-
ton, however is not involved in this case,
and we do not desire to express an opinion
upon it. These duties were properly col
leCle0 ana the action or the Circuit court
in sustaining the demurrer to the complaint
was correct and it is therefore affirmed.
Chief Justice Fuller and Justices Brewer,
Harlan and Peckham united in a dissent
ing opinion in the DOOley case. The Opln-
ion was read by the chief justice and was
based largely on the constitutional prOv1-
siOns concerning the regulations of COM
merce. He said: THE power to regulate
interstate commerce was granted in order
that trade between the States might be
left free from discriminating legislation
4 to
tagOniStic commercial relations between
them. The prohibition of preference of
ports was coupled with the prohibition or
taxation on articles exported. The citizens
of each State were declared entitled to all
privileges and immunitieS of citizens in the
several States, and that included the right
of ingress and egress and the enjoyment
of the privileges of trade and commerce.
Further on, the opinion says: The pro-
hibition in Congress IS explicit and notice
ssPy dieTf S fToH the PTGhi6i0n % OF the
any impOsts or duties Congress is for
hidden to lay any tax or duty The State
is forbidden from laying imposts or duties
on imports or exports, that Is articles
coming into going out of the United
States. Congress is forbidden TO tax ar
ticles exported from any State The plain
language Of the Constitution should not be
made blank paper by construction, and Its
specific mandate ought TO be Obeved.''
Taking up the plea that the duties in this
case were laid not on articles exported from
the State Of New York. but on articles i'm
ported into Porto Rico, the chief justice
said the language used precludes this con-
tentiOn. The geographical origin of the
shipment controls. and il is not material
whether the duties were cOllectable at the
place of expectation or at Porto Rico. They
were imposed on articles from the State of
New York, and before the articles had
reached their ultimate destination and had
been mingled with the common mass of
property on the island.
The dissenting opinion concludes as fol-
lows: The proposition that because the
proceeds Of these duties were TO be used
for the benefit Of Porto Rico they might be
returned as if laid by Porto Rico itself
with the consent OF Congress, and WERE
therefore, lawful, viii not bear the COnsti-
tuition. Congress may lay local taxes in
the Territories affecting persons and prop
erty therein or authorize territorial legis-
latures to do so, but IT cannot lay tariff
duties on articles exported from one State
to another, or from any State to the Ter
ritOries or from any State TO foreign coun-
tries. or grant a power in that regard
which ii does not possess. But the decision
now made recognizes such powers i'm Con-
gress as will enable, by means of taxation
to exclude the products of Porto Rico from
the States, as we'll as the products of the
States from Porto Rico; and this. notwith-
standing it was held in De Lima VS.. Bid
we'll that Porto Rico, after the ratification
of the treaty with Spain, ceased to be for
eign and became domestic territory. We
think il clear on this record that plaintiffs
were entitled to recover, and that the judg-
ment should be reversed"