Aberdeen herald. [volume] (Aberdeen, Chehalis County, W.T.) 1886-1917, 1901-12-26
so BROWN DECIDES
STATUS OF lNSULAR DEPEND.
ENCiES DECLARED By THE
SUPREME COURT.
An Analysis Of the -Four Decisions Of the United
States Supreme Court. In the lnsular Cases.
Under Them Congress Nay Erect Tariff
Walls Against Any Of the Territories.


Mr.. Justice Brown, of the supreme
court of the United States, has made
two more decisions for that court in the
litigation growing out of the new Amer
lean policy of imperialism. We say that
Justice Brown has done this, because he
has held the balance Of power in the
court, deciding with four of his associates
upon one point, the other four dissent
ing, and with the other four upon other
points, the first four dissenting. 1t is
evident that Mr.. Justice Brown is des-
tined to figure in the constitutional
history of the United States either as a
very great jurist or as very absurd one.
If the country adopts the imperial
policy, for which he has found warrant
in the constitution, he will be accounted
great. But if the country returns to its
old ideals he will be better remembered
as a comical than as an imposing
character in constitutional history. For
successful judicial bridge for the passage
of the country from republic to empire
will be his, while in the other he will
reap the unenviable reward of having
tried to substitute empire for republic
and failed. 1t was his casting vote, both
last spring and this month, that made
the decision of the court. The voice was
the voice OF the court, but the decision
was the decision of Mr.. Justice Brown.
Two cases were decided, one against
the government and the other for it,
each by vote of five to four, precisely
on this occasion as last spring. In
one, the De Lima case, it was then de-
cided that with reference to existing
tariff laws the ratification of treaties of
cession instantly and of their own force
divest coded territory of its foreign char
acter and make it territory of the United
States. This decision is now followed in
the diamond ring case." An American
soldier named Pepke had brought IA
diamond rings home with him from the
Philippines. They were seized for nom
payment of tariff duties, under the
Dingley law. This was upon the theory
that the PHILIPPINES were not American
territory. But as the treaty Of cession
had at that time been ratified, the court
holds that the PHILIPPINES were American
territory. The court does not hold,
however that congress is constitutionally
prohibited from making tariff laws
applicable to the Philippines. This con-
tention is, on the contrary. distinctly
overruled in the other case, which relates
to Porto Rico and is known as the second
Dooley case. The second Dooley case
differs in its facts from the Downes case
OF last spring, in only one inn
portant particular. In the Downes case
it was decided that congress can make a
law for national territory which imposes
tariff duties upon goods coming from
that territory into state, the constitu-
tional requirement of uniformity being
held not to apply in such cases. In the
second Dooley case another step is taken.
It is there decided that an act of con.
gress imposing tariffs upon goods going
out of state into national territory is
also valid, it being held that the constit-
utional clause forbidding tariff upon
exports from state does not apply to
exports to national territory. Both as
to the exports to and the imports from
national territory, therefore, congress is
now declared to have full discretionary
power.
These four decisions, taken together
make precedents for the following con.
stitutional interpretations: ~ The
treaty-making power consisting of the
president of the United States and the
senate) may acquire inhabited as well as
uninhabited territory as the property of
the United States by treaty. (2) Terri
tory so acquired ceases, instantly and by
force Of the treaty, to be foreign territory
with reference to existing tariff laws
imposing duties upon imports from
foreign countries, and in that respect
becomes territory of the United States.
(3) Congress has power to organize such
territory, and in doing SO may impose
d ties upon goods imported from it into
a tate, without regard to the uniformity
cl use OF the constitution, and may also
impose duties upon goods exported to it
from a state, without regard to the
constitutional clause forbidding tariffs
on exports.
So far, then, as the supreme court can
by vote OF five to four permanently
settle anything Of vital concern. it has
now either directly or implicitly deter
mined the status of American territories.
However densely populated they may