The Madison daily leader. [volume] (Madison, S.D.) 1890-current, 1901-05-28
ABSOLUTELY pure.
POWDER co nev voes

Hco. and II Is insisted tha, il is c+;u
foreign country within the meanirg
on the tariff laws. We are unah,e "a
"'q"'esee IN this assumption that
territory may be at the same time
po'h foreign and domestic.
we are. therefore. OF the opinion
that at the time these duties were
OWED. Porto Rico was not foreign
country within the meaning Of the tar
III laws, but territory Of the United
states. that the duties were Illegally
eSacted and that the plaintiffs are en-
lt'ed 10 recover them back.
The Judgment of the circuit court
for the Southern district OF New York
IS therefore reversed and the case re-
manded to that court for further pro-
ceedinss IN consonance with this opin-
ion"
IHsfic" N"konna delivered the dis.
ming opinion Of the supreme court
IN ne insnlar cases. He was Joined
~ that opinion by Justices Shires and
White
Decision in Other Cases.
In the cases Of Goetz IS. the United
States and CrOssman IS. the United
States. brought here from the circuit
court Tor the Southern distr.t of New
York TO test, in the GoetZ case. the va
l!dity Of the levy Of duty on Al impor-
tation OF tobacco from Porto Rico
into the United States after the rati-
!ication OF the treaty and before the
passage OF the Porto Rican act and
in the Erossman case duty on liquors
imported into Hawaii after annexation
but b, eore the taking effect of the act
providing government for Hawaii.
the court reversed the judgments be
( low for tho reasons cited in the Deli
ma case holding the levy OF duties was
unconstitutional.
Justice Brown also announced the
oniNfea of the court In the case OF
the United States involving
~ n duty levied on goods
into Porto Rico from the
states between the date of
m. .is.tst occupation and the taking of
feet of he Porto Kican tariff act. The
court held that there could he nc
doubt Of the validity of the duties lev
led by virtue Of General Miles order
prior to the ratification OF the treaty
OF peace. II placed this right on the
ground OF military necessity.
With reference To duties levied after
ratification Of the peace treaty the
court said different rule applied and
| il held these duties invalid. Justices
Gray. Shiras. Mckenna and White dis
! sented. the latter delivering the opin-
| ion
| Justice Brown next announced the
opinion in the case Of Downs v. Bid
well. relating 10 a shipment Of oranges
| from Porto Rico To New York after
| the enactment of the Foraker act.
! The objections TO III" lower court ;
| jurisdiction We're overrulcd. Justice
| Brown then proceeded to show the diff
ference of the question in thi, cas-"
| from that involved in the FIRST case de
! cided. this difference being based on
| time and tho course taken hy the oN-
ccutive and legislative branches ot
| the government, He said tha!" was
! considerable divergence in the opinion
Of the court in the past and too much
weight should not be given to partlc-
ular phases of past decisions such as
that referring to the supreme arthor-
itv of congress as that might rctrr Y"
the supreme authority OF congress m
dor ,be constitution. After analyzing
the case o' oushborough IS. blak'
the Justice summed the conditions IN
der which territories were not III th'
same positiOn as states.