The Saint Paul globe. (St. Paul, Minn.) 1896-1905, 1901-05-28
SUPREME COURT IS
FAR FROM UNANIMOUS
Chief Justice Fuller, Justices Har-
Ian, Brewer and Peckham File
Dissenting Opinion in
DOwnes Case

The chief dissenting opinion in the
Downcs case was announced by Chief
Justice Fuller, Justices Harlan, Brewer
and Peckham joining il, the dissent. He
said the majority, though widely differing
in their reasoning, seemed to concur in
the view that Porto Rico belongs to the
United States, but nevertheless is not a
part of the United States subject to the
provisions of the constitution in respect
of taxes. The Foraker act under which
the duties were levied created a COM
plete form Of government for Porto Rico
VITA q special provision that the taxes
levied in the United States on Porto
Rican exports should be held as a special
fund for Porto Ricos benefit. 1T was
admitted that on it's face the part Of
the act with reference to duties die not
comply with the rule of uniformity pre-
scribed by the constitution. The con-
stitutiOnal uniformity is A geographical
uniformity, but the opinion continued.
1T was said that congress in att mptlng
to levy these duties was not exercising
power derived from the first clause Of
section eight, or restricted by it, be-
cause in dealing with the territories
congress exercises unlimited powers Of
government and moreover that these du-
ties are merely local taxes. This court
in 1870, when Marshall was chief justice,
and Washington, William Johnston, Liv-
lDgSton, Todd, DuVal and Storey were
his associates, took a different view of
the power of congress In the matter Of
laying and collecting taxes, duties, i'm
posts and excuses in the territories and
its ruling in Loughborough vs. Blake, 5
Wheat, 317 has never been cVerruled. Il
is stated IN one Of the opinions of the
majority that the chief justice, made
certain observations which have OCCASION
ed some embarrassment in other cases"
Il agree that the opinion of the court
delivered by him must be embarrassing
IN this case. for it is necessary to over
rule that decision in order to reach the
result herein announced
Chief Justice Marshall in that case. in
considering the provision requiring that
AL duties, imposts and excuses shall be
uniform throughout the United States, -
said:
"URITED STATES" DEFINED
Does this term dhe United Statcs)
designate the whole or any portion of the
American empire? Certainly this ques,
ton can admit Of but one answer 1t Is
the name given to our great republic
Whlch IS composed of states and tGrrito-
rles. The District of Columbia or the
territory west Of the MississsiDpi Is no
less within the United States than Mary,
land or Pennsylvania and it is not less
necessary on the principles Of our consti-
CulioH CHaI uniformity IN the imposition
OF lmpoSts. dlties and excuses should be
observed IN the one case than in the
other. Since, then, the powAr to Law and
collect taxes, which include direct taxes
Is OBVIOUSLY co-eXtensive with the power
TO lay and collect duties, imposts and
excuses, and since the latter extends
throughout the United States, it follows
that the power to impose direct tag also
extends throughout the United States
OF the suggestion that this statement
was mere dicta, Chief Justice Fuller said
it was wholly inadn1issible to reject the
process Of reasoning by which the chief
Justice reached and tested the soundness
Of his conclusions are merely obiter
The chief justice held the territories
AS well as the District to be part of the
United States for the purpose of Rltional
taxation, and repeated in effect what he
mad already said in MCCULLOUGH VS.
Maryland V. Wheaton, 40S: Throughout
this vast republic. from the st. ACroix to
the Gulf OF Mexico, from the Atlantic to
the Pacific, revenue is to be collected and
expended, armies are to be marched and
| supported "
Continuing he combatted the conten.
ton that these particular duties are local
in their nature, and said the lew is
clearly regulation of commerce, and
made in the exercise of national powers.
He added:
REGULATION OF COMMERCE..
In any point of view the imposition
of duties on commerce operates to regu-
late commerce, and is not matter of
local legislation, and 1t follows that the
levy, Of these duties was in the exercise
OF the national power to do so, and sub
Ject to the requirement of geographical
uniformity.
THE fact that the proceeds Of these du-
ties are devoted by the act to the use of
territory does not make national taxes
local
Nobody disputes the power of con,
gress to levy and collect duties geograph-
ically uniform and apply the proceeds
by proper appropriation act to the re-
lief of a particular territory. but the
destination Of the proceeds would not