Wheeling register. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1878-1935, 1901-05-31
A TANGLED sKEIN.

ton is scarcely more Ineligible than
before and all is doubt and indecision
as to the real effect on the status OF our
island possessions
The Treasury Department holds that
the decision will make no change in its
Philippine policy, which means that
merchandise from the Philippines will
continue to pay full tariff rates at the
ports of the United States. On the 9TH
er hand some of the most experienced
legislators as well as some of the ablest
lawyers in Washington take exactly the
opposite view of the matter and declare
that the De Lima decision puts the
Philippines on a free trade footing with
the United States. Ex-senator Chand-
Ter, for example, who took a prominent
part in framing the administrators
colonial policy, unhesitatingly declares
that we are to lave free trade with the
Philippines until Congress passes a spe-
cial act to the contrary.
On the other hand, there are many
able lawyers who hold that since the
Philippines still are technically, If not
in fact, on a war basis, the President is
empowered under the provisions of the
Spooner resolution to draft and pro-
claim a special tariff schedule for the
islands. Mr. Chandler meets this asser-
ton with the contention that while the
Spooner resolution clothes the Presi-
dent with plenary power in respect to
the Philippines, these powers are lin
tied to the internal administration of
the islands and do not extend to the
ports of the United States. In other
words, Mr.. Chambers contention is
that the President cannot, of his own
act throw the ports of this country
open for the free admission Of Philip
pine products, though the effect of the
Supreme Courts De Lima decision does
this.
In the New York Tribune ex-senator
Chandler gives a very succinct interpre-
tation of the court S decisions as fol-
lows:
Justices Brown, Fuller, Harlan, Brewer
and Peckham hold that Porto Rico and
the Philippines are not foreign countries,
but are territories of the United States,
and in the absence of special legislation
by Congress goods can come therefrom
into the United States free of duty. JUS
tices Fuller, Harlan, Brewer and Peck
ham also go further and hold that Con-
gress cannot by legislation prevent the
admission of goods from those places free
of duty.
But Justices Brown, Gray, Shiras, White
and McKenna hold that the Foraker act,
imposing Is per cent. of the regular tariff
duties on goods from Porto Rico is con-
stitutional.
The effect of the decisions is that all
goods coming from Porto Rico before the
Foraker act, and all goods coming from
the Philippines at any time are free of
duty, and any payments of duties exacted
contrary to the principles of the decisions
must be refunded; so that we are to have
free trade with the Philippines until Con-
gress legislates.
49, - ID given
out from the Treasury Department:
The department will go on collecting
duties on imports from the Philippines as
it has been doing until the courts say that
we are wrong or Congress shall legislate.
The decision as to Porto Rico in no way
affects the Philippines. We have prob
ably not collected as much from the Phil
ippines SO far as we did from Porto Rico,
although We will lave the exact figures in
a short time.
Thus all is confusion worse %confound-
ed. And there is still another case to
come up touching on another and i'm
portant side of the Porto Rican contro-
versy. 1t is known as the second Doc
ley case, and deals with the collection
OF the Foraker tariff tax on goods ship
ped to Porto Rico from the United
States. John G. Carlisle, the leading
counsel against the government, tool
the bold ground in his argument In lne
second Dooley case that the Foraker
law imposed an export tax on ship
ments from the United States, which
is plainly and distinctly prohibited by
the Constitution. If, therefore, the
court in deciding this case next fall
holds that it is an export tax or tariff,
1t is evident that the decision in the
Downes case, upholding the Foraker
law, will be wholly or partially revers-
ed.
In the midst of this legal confusion
the lay mind is paralyzed. Only one
point stands out with sad c~learnoss,
namely, that Congress in legislating for
O. new possessions is not bound by the
Constitution, that the government of
these dependent peoples is exclusively
In the hands of Congress and the Pres
ident to an unfair and dangerous ex-
tent. They may De rg'"a as a domi-
nant American administration sees fit.
They may be subjected to trade dis
examinations and special burdens of
taxation. 1t is possible to destroy their
industries and their commerce for the
greater profit Of the trusts controlling
%kA -