New-York tribune., 1901-12-03
The NEW INSELAR DECISIONS.

The insular decisions Of the Supreme Court
handed down yesterday in complete har-
mony with the findings Of that tribunal last
MAY The liberty then given 10 the government
TO deal with the possessions as expediency
NAV require is not at all invaded, but, on the
other hand, is reatfirmed as 10 the one point
then left in doubt-namely, the power OF Con
gress to impose duties in the outlying Islands on
goods sent from State Last spring the court
held that Porto Rico ceased TO be foreign terri
tory the ratification Of the treaty Of cession;
that consequently the then existing tariff laws
of the United States leyying duties goods
imported from foreign countries" did not apply
to goods coming from that island and that in
: the absence of legislation the Executive could
not. either in the island at home. impose
3 duties. 1t also held, and this the vital
point, that Congress could pass q law levyinc,
as the general tariff act failed to do. duty
goods brought from Porto Rico The practical
effect of these decisions to declare illegal
the duties exacted in the home ports and in
Porto Rico between the ratification of the treaty
of peace and the passage of the Foraker act.
but TO uphold the levy of duties here goods
from Porto Rico under the Foraker act.
The court at that time did not pass on the
constitutionality of that part of the Foraker act
imposing duties in Porto Rico on goods brought
from the United States. Yesterday il decided
this question dividing. as it did. concerning the
rest of the law In the second Dooley case in
volving the matter. the government is sustained
by Justices Brown, White. Gray ShiraS and
Nckenna. while Chief Justice Fuller and Jus
tices Harlan. Brewer and Peckham dissent.
The chief attack against the law applied
in Porto Rico was made on the ground that 1t
imposed tax on exports from the States,
trary to the constitution, and the dissenting
judges adopt that view. The majority. how
ever. say that the imposts levied in Porto Rico
for the benefit of the island were not export
duties within the meaning of the constitution.
even if imposed goods sent from the States.
Justice Brown. who wrote the opinion sustaining
the rest of the Foraker act. writes the opinion of
the court announcing this judgment. Justice
White. who last spring concurred in his finding
for independent reasons. now writes separate
concurrng opinion. Each justice. concurrng or
dissenting is consistently following his
view as outlined last May.
The Pepke case. the decision of which was
also handed down yesterday, was far less inn
portant matter of principle than the second
Dooley case, but since it involves more notice
able immediate consequences it is likely to have
more attention. The question at issue was the
legality of the duties levied under the Dingley
law on imports from the Philippines. On this
the justices divided. as they did on the similar
question regarding Porto Rico. Justices Gray.
Shiras, White and McKenna held that the
Philippines We're not domestic territory in the
meaning of the tariff act. The Chief Justice
and Justices Harlan Brewer and Peckham, who
believe that the constitution compels treatment
of the outlying Territories the same States
in tariff matters, are Joined by Justice Brown,
who thinks the tariff law not operative against
the outlying islands foreign countries"
though he does not agree with the constitu-
tional theories of the associates with whose
finding he concurs- The attempt was made to
cifferentiate the Philippines from Porto Rico
because of the Senate resolution disclaiming in
tent to incorporate them into the United States
and also because OF the state of insurrecton. No
justice. however, was led to take this view, and