Santa Fe new Mexican. [volume] (Santa Fe, N.M.) 1898-1951, 1901-05-27
A VICTORY FOR
THE GOVERNMENT
Congress Has the Right to Legislate
for the Colonial Possessions as
It May See Fit
SUPREME COURT DECISION
The Colonies, However, Are Not Considered
Foreign Territory-Point at Issue Has
Been Clearly Decided Four Dis
senting Justices.

i
States supreme court today nanded
down opinions covering all the issues
n, the new insular possessions when
> nave been in controversy. Although
several decisions upheld the contest
o,ts on certain issues raised, yet in the
most important decision, that OF
Downes against Bidwell, Justice Brown
announced a sweeping decision OF the
court unfolding the general attitude
and policy of the government up TO the
present time. The effect of this decls-
ion is to affirm the constitutionality OF
the Foraker act and to give congress
the power to deal with the newly ac-
ouired territory in such manner as
the legislative branch may consider
suitable for new territory. Inc decls-
ion also has the effect of declaring that
the new insular possessions do not by
virtue of the treaty of cession acquire
all the privileges and rights OF the
constitution.
THE DE LIMA CASE.
WASHINGTON, May 27.-The United
States supreme court today announced
ITS decision in the insular cases. The
announcement of the courts opinion
was begun at 1921. An opinion was
handed down in the de Lima case. JUS
tice Brown announced the courts de-
cision on the point of jurisdiction
holding that the court had jurisdiction.
The de Lima case involved the import
alton of goods into the United states
from Porto Rico after the ratification
of the treaty of Paris and before the
massage of the Porto Rican act. De
Lima & Co. doing business in New
York, imported from San Juan, Porto
Rico, during June and July, 1899, GER
tain sugars, the product of Porto RICO.
Upon these sugars the collector at New
York demanded and collected about
s13O, 10000 as customs duties. De Lima d
Co. sued Bidwell, the collector, as an
individual in the supreme court OF the
state of New York to recover the du-
ties thus paid amounting to $135,l45,
alleging they were unlawfully deman-
ded in violation of the constitution and
collected by duress, the collector ex-
acting payment of the duties as a con-
dition to the delivery of the sugars On
petition of the collector, the suit was
removed to the circuit court of the
United States for the southern district
of New York which sustained the de-
murrer to the complaint both on the
ground that no cause for action was
stated and that the court had no juris-
diction. From the Judgment dismissing
the complaint de Lima & Co. prosecute
in error from this court.
DECISIONS IN OTHER CASES
Washington, May 27.-In the cases OF
Goethe VS.. the United States and
Crossman VS.. the United States,
brought here from the circuit court OF
the southern district of New York to
test in the Goethe case the validity of a
levy of duty on the importation of to-
bacco from Porto Rico into the United
States after the ratification of the
treaty and before the passage OF the
Porto Rican act, and in the Crossman
case, the duty on liquors imported into
Hawaii after annexation but before
Hawaii took effect the court reversed
the judgments below for the reasons
cited in de Lima case, holding that
levy of duties is unconstitutional. JUS
tice Brown also announced the opinion
of the court in the case of Dooley VS..
the United States involving the valid
ity of duty levied on goods imported
into Porto Rico from the United States
between the date Of military occupation
and the taking effect of the Porto Rico
tariff act. The court held that there
could be no doubt of the validity OF
duties levied by the virtue of General
Miles order prior to the ratification OF
the peace treaty. 1t placed this right
on the ground of military necessity.
With reference to duties levied after
the ratification of the peace treaty the
court said different rule applied and
it held these duties invalid. Justices
Gray, Shiras, McKenna and White dis
sented, and the latter delivered the
opinion.
Justice McKenna went into detailed
examination of the cases cited in the
majority opinion. He maintained thai
they disclosed much divergence o.
view, He referred also to the fact that
the precedents not in consonance will
the majority view were now dismissed
as q dictum and not binding opin'
ion. He spoke Of the dangers attending
the dismissal Of judicial opinion as {
s'dictum" and of the greater danger
when such course may interfere or hat
interfered with the action Of nation
Constancy and certainty in judicia
opinion was Of the highest Importance
the Justice declared and they shou1t
y not be like 'exhalations of marsl
shining mistily." Justice McKenna'
examination of many precedents wa
exhaustive and almost an hour wa
given to showing to what extent tn
circumstances each case bore on tn
present condition of Porto Rico.
Justice Gray also dissented from tn
majority opinion In de Lima case
Justice Brown said whether the su
gars imported from or into Porto Ric
were dutiable depends upon whethe
Porto Rico is foreign country. H
held the right to acquire territory in
wolves the right to govern and contro
it by congress, but he said the countr
could not be both foreign and domes
tic.