Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1901-05-27
TERRITORY ACT HOLDS
Supreme Court Decides Constitution Does Not Fol-
low Flag---Cases Confusing.

Ifurther proceedings In cOnSOnance with
this opinion.
| Justice MclSenna delivered dissent
| ing opinion. He was joined by Justices
Shiras and White.
Mckenna Went into a detailed exam
| ination of the cases cited in the majori-
| ty opinion He maintained they did not
show a clear and current decision, but
disclosed much divergence of view. He
referred also to the fact that precedents
not in consonance with the majority
/ view We're now dismissed as dictum and
not binding opinion. He spoke of the
dangers attending dismissal of judicial
lopinion as "dictum' and the greater
danger when such q course may inter-
| fere or had interfered with the action of
a nation. Constancy and certainty of
judicial opinion was of the highest i'm
portance, the justice declared. and they
should not lie like "exhalations of a
marsh. shining mistily.' McKenna's 9
examination of the many precedents
was exhaustive and almost an hour was
given to showing to what extent the cir
cumstances in each case bore on the
present condition in Porto Rico.
After an examination of the cases
cited by the majority opinion, Justice
l Mckenna said the opinion proceeded on
the theory of the cession of Porto RICO
4 absolute, whereas that depended upon
1 the treaty itself. He referred to the ef-
fects wrought upon the country at large
by decisions limiting governmental au-
/ thority in respect to the customs and ill
4 dustrial policy of the country which
| might be destroyed and those signing
the dissenting opinion could not acqui-
/ esce in a view that might lead to such
an end. In the opinion of those dissent
| ing, Justice McKenna said. the judg-
1 ment of the circuit court should be af-
| firmed.
Justice Gray followed with brief an
nouncement of his dissent from the ma
jority opinion. stating that he regarded
l 1t as irreconcilable with the opinion of
the court in former cases.
II Justice Gray also dissented from the
majority opinion in the Delma case.
The cases of Goetze VS.. the United
States and Crossman VS.. the United
1 States We're brought here from the CIR
cult court for the southern district of
New York to test. in the Goethe case,
the validity of the levy of a duty on inn
portation of tobacco from Porto Rico
into the United States after tne ratifea-
II tion of the treaty and before the passage
of the Porto Rican act, and in the
4 Crossman case a duty on liquors inn
ported into Hawaii after annexation
but before taking effect of the act pro-
A yldines a government for Hawaii. The
court reversed the judgments below for
the reasons cited in the Delima case
holding the levy of the duties unconsti-
tutional.
Justice Brown also announced the
, opinion of the court in the case of Doo-
ley vs.. the United States, involving the
duty levied on goods imported into Por-
to Rico from the United States between
The date of the military occupation and
the taking effect of the Porto Rican tar
iff act The court held there could be nc
doubt of the validity of the duties lev
) led by virtue of Gen. Miles order priol
: to the ratification of the treaty of peace
| 1t placed this right on the ground o
!, military necessity. With reference Il
!. duties levied after the ratification of til,
: Peace treaty the court said a differene
rule applied and 1t held these duties in.
o valid. Justices Gray, Shiras, McKenns
. and White dissented. the latter deliver.
ing the opinion. Justice White made tn,
> announcement that In the Downs case
which questions the validity of dutie
0 levied on oranges imported from
G Porto Rico after the Foraker act, th,
. majority of the court would, as Whit,
stated ii. reverse itself and hold tn,
: duty valid. He said the opinion in tn,
r Downs case. which the court would an
nounce later, would thus lead to neon
sistency. the court deciding that afte
the Foraker act Porto Rico ceased to b,
a part of the United States and befor,
: the Fofdher act it was u part OF TIN
y United States. White said the cour
9 would later in the Downs case hold tina
y congress had the power under the Port
d Rican tariff act. to impose tariff dut,
e on goods coming from Porto Rico. H
Il expressed himself unable to conceive ol
! what theory they thus proceeded an,
expressed the opinion that 1t was du
y to the confusion of thought in the De
lima case. 1t was settled law, by depo
e stions in the Woodruff case and Hous
4 ton case he said, that the power of con
a gress to levy import duty did not ex
l. tend to any territory that was par
! of the United States and the result O
N the majority opinion In the Downs cas-
thus would be to bring about state o
things that where a territory wa
a part of the United before the Forake
:. act, it became a foreign territory afte
/ the Foraker act. The dissenting jus
l. tices thruout their dissents took occa
10 sion to criticize sharply the apparen
IS conflict between the majority ruling &
=, the Delima case and that which woul
- follow later in the Downs case In tn
Downs case the court decided
9 in an opinion by Justice Brow
s. that while Porto Rico is a ter
L ritory of the United States it |
n not such for tariff purposes and tn
ss Foraker act is constitutional. Th
II judgment of the circuit court is affirm
j. ed. The dissenting opinion is hande
~ down by Justice White. in which jus
= tices Shiras and McKenna concurred
,e In the course of his reasoning on III
to manner of the acquisition of Porto Ric
a Justice Brown held that congress ha
,f the authority to control such territor,
G. Indeed. 1t is," he said, scarcely to
r. much to say there has not been sessio
tn of congress since the territory of Louis
a. ana was purchased that that body hi
u not enacted legislation based upon til
a assumed authority to govern and COZ
of troll territory. It's authority arises n,
T. necessarily from the territorial clause
l. the constitution, but from the necess
to ties of the case and from the inability
of the states to act upon the subject III