The Iola register. [volume] (Iola, Allen County, Kansas) 1875-1902, 1901-05-31
WE ARE
A NATION
That is the Decision of the
Supreme Court
In the Island Cases. Court
Holds that the New Pos
sessions are
SUBJECT TO CONGRESS
And the President, thus Sus-
tanning the Republican
Contention and Clearing the
way for this Nation to
Work out it's Destiny

Washinton, May, 27.-In the Unite
States supreme court to-day, opinions
were handed down in all but two OF
the cases before that court involving
the relations of the United States to
its insular possessions.
OF the several cases decided to-day,
the two which attracted the greatest
share of attention from the court were
what is known as the Delima case, and
that known as the-Downes case is con-
sidered the most farreaching, as it
affects our future relations, whereas
the Delima case dealt with transit
tional phase of our insular relations.
The Delima case was the first to re-
ceive the attention of the court, and
as it appeared to be quite sweepingly
opposed to the governments conten-
ton, many persons precipitately ar
rived at the conclusion that the gov
eminent had been worsted along the
line. This view suffered a decided
change when the conclusion was an
nounced in the Downes case. The
court was very evenly divided on both
cases, but political lines were not. at
all controlling.
The Delima case involved the power
of the government to collect duty on
goods imported into the United States
from Porto Rico after the ratification
of the treaty of Paris and before the
passage of the Porto Rican act. The
court said the governments conten-
ton in this case was substantially q
claim that Porto Rico is foreign terri
tory. The entire case turned upon
that contention. The court held that
the position was not well taken; that
Porto Rico was not at the time foreign
territory, and that, therefore the duty
which had been collected must be re-
turned.
The decision in the Downes case
followed the history of the dealings of
the United States with Porto Rico a
step farther. That case dealt with the
legality of the eXaction of duties on
goods imported from Porto Rico into
New York after the passage OF the
Foraker act, providing for a duty
upon goods shipped from the United
States into Porto Rico and also on
those shipped from Porto Rico to the
United States. In this case, the court
held that such exaction was legal and
constitutional.
The point of the two opinions con-
sidered collectively is that Porto Rico
was never, after the acquisition of
that island, foreign territory; that,
until congress acted upon the ques
ton, no duty could be collected, but
that, as soon as congress GU, led Il
method Of controlling the islands
revenues, that action became binding;
in other.words that congress haspow-
er under the constitution to prescribe
the manner of collecting the revenues
of the country's insular possessions
and has the right to lay duty on
goods imported into our insular pos
sessions from the United States or ex-
ported from them into the United
States. 1t holds, in brief, that, for
taxation purposes, they are not part
of the United States to the extent that
goods shipped between their ports and
the United States are entitled to the
same treatment as though they we're
shipped between New York and New
Orleans
Justice Brown delivered the courts
opinion, in both, and there were Wig
orous dissenting opinions in both.
In the Downes case, four of the nine
members of the court united in an
opinion characterizing in strong Ian
guage the opinion of the majority in
that case. In this opposing opinion
the chief justice and Justices Harlan,
Brewer and Pecham united, and the
chief justice and Justice Harlan pre-
sented their views in written form.
Justices Gray Shiras, White and
McKenna also, while agreeing with
the conclusion announced by Justice
Brown, announced that. they had
reached the conclusion by different
lines of argument, and Justice Gray,
White and McKenna announced opin-
ions outlining their respective posi-
tions. Justices Shiras, White and
McKenna also dissented in the Delima
case, uniting in an opinion. Justice
Gray also presented an independent
and dissenting opinion in that case.
The small court room was crowded