The Atlanta constitution., 1901-12-09

conclusion. The justice who delivered
the opinion in DeLima's case was or the
opinion that on cession Porto Rico ceased
to be a Soreign country and became
territory of the United States and domes-
tic, yet that 1t was merely appurtenant
territory and not q part of the United
States within the revenue clauses or
the constitution.
Fine Distinction Drawn.
This view placed the territory. though
not foreign, outside of the restrictions
applicab BILE to interstate commerce, and
treated the power of congress when af-
firmatively exercised over a territory
situated as supposed as uncontrolled by
the provisions of the constitution in re-
Spect of national taxation. The diStlnc-
tion was drawn between a special act In
respect of the particular country and a
general and prior act only appllcaDle 10
countries foreign 20 ours In every sense.
The latter was Obliged to conform to the
rule of uniformity which was wholly dis
regarded in the former.
''The ruling in the case of DeIima re-
maned unaffected and controls that
under consideration. And this is so,
Notwithstanding four members OF the ma
jority in the DeI.ima case We're OF tne
opinion that Porto Rico did not come
by the cession subjected to the exercise
of governmental power in the levy OF
duties until restricted by constitutional
limitations.
Decree reversed and Sause remained
with directions to quash the lnforma-
ton"
Justices Gray. White. Shiras and Nc
Kenna united In dissenting from the
courts opinion in the Philippine case.
saying they ''dissented for the reasons
stated In their opinions in the cases of
DeLima V. Bidwell. Dooley V. The
United States and Downes Y. Bidwell in
the last term of the court"
Browns Porto Rican Opinion.
In the Dooley case Justice Browns
| opinion held that as Porto Rico Is not
| foreign territory, the goods shipped to
Porto Rico are not exports, but whether
| exports or imports, the wide range Of
congress in the matter of taxation was
sufficient for contingency of this char
| acter.
At best he said the duty was n tenn
| porary cXpcdient and as 1t was explicitly
| provided in the Foraker act that the Por-
70 Rican legislature could change the
character of the enactment it was held
that the Foraker act was merely legisla-
tion in favor of Porto Rico. The Foraker
act was sustained on the grounds laid
down in the Downes case. another OF
the insular cases decided at the last term.
The decision of the lower court was al
hrmed. Justice Brown explicitly said
that the opinion was not to be construed
as a justification of export duties.
Justice Brown said that the duties levied
violated the clause of the constitution
declaring that mo tax or duty shall be
laid on articles exported from any state.
The court, he said. in the case of Wood
ruff Y. Parham had held that the word
import" in connection with the provision
OF the constitution. that no state shall
! levy any imposts or duties on imports or
exports" applied only to articles imported
from foreign countries into the United
| States.
This definition of the word 1mposts
| had afterwards been approved in the case
/ OF Brown V. Houston If. then. Porto
| Rico be no longer a foreign country under
/ the Dingley act, as was held by ma
| Jority OF the court In DeLima V. Sid
Wel, ii is impossible to say that goods
| carried from New York to Porto Rico
| can be considered as exported from New
/ York within the meaning of tnat clause
/ of the constitution. If they are neither
! exports nor imports. they are still liable
/ to be taxed by congress.
Export or Import.
! The question whether a duty laid by
! congress upon goods arriving at Porto
| Rico from New York is a duty upon an
/ export from New York or upon an i'm
| port to Porto Rico. he said was not free
| from doubt, the manner in which and the
| place at which the tax Is levied being of
minor consequence
/ lone thing. however" he added. 'is
! entirely clear. The tax was imposed on
/ goods imported into Porto Rico since il
/ was eXacted by the collector Of the port
/ of San Juan"
/ The justice pointed out, Furthermore.
] that the tax was not laid to add TO the
/ revenues OF the country from which the
export takes place, but for the benefit of
! the territory into which they are import
I cd. He added:
( Now there can be no doubt whatever
/ If the Legislative assembly II 1rtp Rico
/ should with consent of congress. lay i
/ tax upon goods arriving fr)m ports Cf tn
/ United States. such tax would be- duty
/ upon imports to Porto Rico AMI not upon
/ exports from the United States. ana wc
/ think the same result must follow If the
/ duty be laid by congress in tho interest
and for the benefit of Forto Rico.
No Power To Lay Export Tax.
at is not intended hy this opinion 10
/ intimate that congress may lay an eX-
/ port tax upon merch irdise carried from
I one state to another. There is a wild DIFF
/ ference between the tull anI paramount
/ power OF congress in legislating for a
/ territory In the cond't.on OF Porto Rico
and its power with respect to the states
/ which is merely incidental to its right
! to regulate interstate commerce..
THESE duties were properly c3ilected
\ and the action Of the circuit court IN
/ sustaining the demurrer 10 the complaint
/ was correct and it is therefore affirmed.
/ Justice White concurred in the result
/ but delivered an Independent decision.
This case grows out of the IMP }sitions
/ of tariff duty on goods shioped from
| New York to Porto Rico Nay !, 1900, u
| October p of the same year unier the
| ac. Of April y. 1900 providing revenues
I and a civil government for Porto Rico,
/ the sum involved being 81 .i33
/ This money was collected at Porto
/ Rico on goods shipped to that port by
| Dooley, Smith & Co. to their agent. who
was In san Juan. The collections were
/ imposed under that portion of the law in
! question which provides that all merChan-
/ disc coming Into Porto Rico from the
1 United States shall be entered at the sew
! eral ports of entry upon payment of ].
/ per cent Of the duty levied and collected
/ en- like articles of merchandise imported