New-York tribune., 1901-01-08
GOVERNMENTS CONTENTION DISPUTED.
COUNSEL ARGUE THAT PORTO RICO is PART OF
THE UNITED STATES.

Washington Jan. 7-Ex- Secretary Carlisle who
appears leading counsel against the Govern
ment in the Porto Rican customs cases. will not file
an individual brief, but will present his views
verbally. His name, however, appears of cOun-
sci in the briefs in the Dooley involving the
right to duties articles brought into Porto
Rico from "Other parts of the United States and
also sent from Porto Rico into other parts OF the
United States before and after the Treaty OF
Peace, and also after Congress passed the Porto
Rican act. Henry NJ. Ward filed these briefs in the
Supreme Court to-day. Following is summary of
the argument:
First-At all times since the ratification of the
statess seas Porto Rico has been part of the United
sovereignty Porto Rico has become vested in
the United States, b9t the executive and legis-
have only such power in relation to Porto Rico
Third-The President had not the power under the
Constitution to make enforce the order Of January
OF merchandiSe brought into Porto Rico from other
:, Fourth-Congress had not the power under the
Constitution to impose the taxes or duties imposed
s6aadse brought into Porto Rico from other parts
United States from Porto Rico.
In sustaining these points no time is spent in
discussing the power of the United States to ac-
quire and hold outside territory, that power having
become firmly established" In support of the
first point 1t is contended that by the operation of
the Paris Treaty Porto Rico has become as much
part OF the United States as any one of the or
ganized States Territories The second point re-
lating TO sovereignty is elaborated in part fol-
lows
In using the expression Sovereignty or owner
ship of the United States. mean not the SOW
ereignty or ownership of the Government of
the President or OF Congress, but the sovereignty
or owne-ship Of the people Of this country, in
whom the ultimate power is lodged and by whom
not all power bur certain enumerated powers only
have been delegated to the various cO-ordina te
not follow that because Spain has yielded her SOW
ereigaty Congress has unlimited sovereign powers.
u fWrr1
any other source than the Constitution II does not
law or from the fact that the United States is a
sovereign Nation" or from the fact that the ex-
order to carry out the policy of a particular Ad-
There is also elaborate argument on the ques-
tion Of the lawful power OF the President in con-
nection with the order OF January 90 1882 in far
as II related duties. The contention is made
that, Notwithstanding this step taken by the
Chief Executive Commander-in-Chief of the
Army it was not a necessary military measure
IF this duty lawfully imposed Is asked
what limit is there upon this despotic military
power?" Other similar questions follow:
II the President could lay this tax upon COM
meree between Porto Rico and other parts of the
United states on February l. 1889. did he continue
70 have this power until Congress should act, and
BEEN prevented from acting bv the I'D
veto? Is the military power omnipotent in a new
Of the President WIEN consTess does @ mot sa
to Legis3.e IN its placer What difference does the
duties were expended "for the benefit OF Porto
Rico make? Is the cOnstitutionality Of a tax 70
be determined by the objects to which it is ap-
piled? Was the Louisiana Lottery changed into a
public benefit and lesalized because part of the
works?
The conclusion is drawn that the existence Of
any such power In one man. however exalted his
office is opposed TO the whole spirit of insttlI-
tons
The scope OF the fourth point in the summary
is indicated by the following questions:
What Is meant by the term United states.' as
here used? Does it include only the forty-hve
States and leave the trade between Porto Rico and
Arizona. New Mexico, Alaska and the District of
Columbia free, or does II mean the United States
as constituted before the late war with Spain" and
hence not apply to the trade between Porto Rico
and Hawaii, Guam and the Philippines?
Is this an attempt TO levy import duties upon
commerce between domestic ports, or are these ex-
actions Of the of eXcises internal revenue
taxes? Are they subject TO the requirement OF
uniformity? And, If so, they uniform? And
finally. has Congress any warrant for laying these
taxes arising out Of it's power govern the terri
tory Of the United States?
The conclusion is drawn that the taxes are not
imposts duties, but in the nature Of In
ternal revenue duties eXcises.
SUPREME COURT DECISIONS.