The Savannah morning news., 1901-12-03
FILIPINO DIAMONDS.
Continued from First Page.

I'VE do not understand that it is
claimed that in carrying on the pend
ing hostilties the government is seek
ing to subiugate the people of a foreign
country. but on the contrary. that it is
preserving order and suppressing insur-
rection in territory of the United
States. 1t follows that the possession
of the United States is adequate pos
session under legal title, and this cam
not be asserted for one purpose and
denied for another"
The chief justice concluded his opin-
ion by reversing the decision of the
court below. Justice Brown read an
opinion concurring in the result. but
differing from the conclusions drawn
on minor points.
Justices Gray. Shiras. White and Nc
Kenna dissented, but filed no written
statement.
The Second DOoIey Case.
The other case decided was the sec
ond of the Dooley cases, involving the
constitutionality of the law of April
u, providing for the collection of duty
on articles shipped from the United
States into Porto Rico. The decision
was rendered by Justice Brown.
TINS case grows out of the imposf-
ton of tariff duties on goods shipped
from New York to Porto Rico, under
the act of April II. 1900. providing re-
venues and a civil government for
Porto Rico. Duty was collected at
Porto Rico on goods shipped to that
port by Dooley, Smith & Co, to their
agent who was in San Juan.
Dooley. Smith & Co brought suit to
recover the money paid by them, which
they declared had been wrongfully col
lected at San Juan.
The contention on the part of Dool-
ey's counsel was that Congress- has not
the power under the constitution to inn
pose taxes or duties such as were lew
led under the act of April L. upon arr
ticles taken into Porto Rican ports
from other ports of the united States,
Porto Rico being an integral portion
of the nation.
Justice Brown, in his opinion. said
the case raised the constitutionalitv of
the Foraker act, so far as it fixes the
duties to be paid upon merchandise inn
ported into Porto Rico from the port
of New York, the validity of that re-
qurement being attacked upon the
ground of its violation of the clause
of the constitution declaring that mo
tax or duty shall be laid on articles
exported from any state
A Question OF Exports
Justice Brown said the word exports
applied only to goods exported to for
eign country. IF, then Porto Rico be
no longer a foreign country under the
Dingley act, as was held by a major
lty of this court in DeLima against
Bidwell, we find it impossible to say
that goods carried from New York to
Porto Rico can be considered as 'ex-
ported from New York within the
meaning. of that clause of the consti-
tuition IL thnU ara r1aiflaat 10
imports, they are still liable to be taxed
by Congress under the ample and COM
prehensfve authority conferred by the
constitution, to lay and collect taxes,
duties, imposts and excuses
In another view, however, the case
presented by the record is whether a
duty laid by Congress upon goods ar
irving at Porto Rico from New York
is a duty upon an export from New
York, or upon an import to Porto Rico.
The fact that the duty is exacted upon
the arrival of the goods at San Juan
| certainly creates a presumption in IA
| vor of the latter theory. At the same
time it is possible that 1t may also be
a duty upon an export. The mere fact
that the duty is not laid at the port
of departure is by no means decisive
against it being such.
"One thing, however. is entirely
clear. The tax in question was inn
passed upon goods imported into Porto
Rico, since it was exacted by the COL
lector Of the port of San Juan after
the arrival of the goods within the
limits of that port. From this moment
the duties became payable as upon
imported merchandise. Now, while an
import into one port almost necessar-
lily involves a prior export from an
other, still. in determining the char
acter of the tax imposed. il is import
ant to consider whether the duty
laid for the purpose of adding to the
revenues of the country from which
the export takes place. or for the bene-
fit Of the territory into which they are
imported.
I'm imposing the duty as a tenn
porary expedient, with a proviso that
it may be abolished by the legislative
assembly of Porto Rico at it's will, Con-
gress thereby shows that it is under
taking to legislate for the island tenn
porarily and only until the local gov
eminent is put into operation The
mere fact that the duty passes through
the hands of the revenue officers of the
United States is immateriaI in view
of the requirements that II shall
not be covered into the
general fund of the treasury, but be
held as a separate fund for the gov
eminent and benefit of Porto Rico
THE action is really correlative to
that of Downs VS.. Bidwell, in which we
held that Congress could lawfully inn
pose duty upon imports from Porto
Rico, Notwithstanding the provision Of
the constitution that all duties, inn
posts and excuses shall be uniform
throughout the United States.
The Powers of Congress.
ut is not intended by this opinion 10
intimate that Congress may lay 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 i'm
possible. to lay such tax without a.
violation of the first paragraph of Ar
ticle !, Section s. that all duties i'm
posts and excuses, shall be uniform
throughout the United States
There is a wide differ
ence between the full and paramount
power Of Congress i'm legislating for a
territory in the condition Of Porto
Rico. and its power with respect 10
the states which is merely incidental
to its right to regulate Interstate com
merce. The question. however, Is not
involved In this case. and we 10 not
desire to express an opinion upon it.
These duties were properly collected.
and the action of the Circuit Court I'm
sustaining the demurrer to the COM
plant was correct, and II is therefore
affirmed"
Justice White concurred. but rem
dered an Independent opinion