The Billings gazette. [volume] (Billings, Mont.) 1896-1919, 1901-05-28
ADMINISTRATION IS SUSTAINED
Decision Adverse to Government In Case Where Duty Was
Collected On Imports from Porto Rico Before
Passage Of Foraker Act.

Op1A1OA III OOlA dAO I1C1C WC1S t1SO1
u dissenting opinions in both.
Four Dissent.
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 Peckham united, and the
chief justice and Justice Harlan pre-
sented their views in written form.
Justices Gray, Shiras, White and Nc
Kenna also, while agreeing with the
conclusion announced by Justice
Brown, announced that they had
reached the conclusion by different
lines of argument, and Justices Gray,
White and McKenna announced opin-
ions outlining their respective posi-
tons. Justices Shiras, White and Nc
Kenna also dissented in the Delima
case, uniting in an opinion. Justice
Gray also presented an independent
and dissenting opinion in the case.
The small court room was crowded
to repletion throughout the day, prom
inent government officials and many
attorneys being present and the pro-
ceedings were followed from start to
finish with keen interest.
The other cases decided by the court
were those Of Goethe VS.. United States,
involving duties On importations from
Porto Rico, and Crossman VS. United
States, duties on Hawaiian imports
being involved. In these two cases
the Delima decision was followed and
assessment of duties prior to the en-
actment of legislation for the islands
was held illegal.
The assessments of duties was part
ly sustained and partly denied in the
of Dooley and Armstrong VS..
United States. The duties we're held
legal when made during the military
occupation of Porto Rico and prior to
ratification of the peace treaty, but
illegal when levied after the peace
treaty, but prior to the passage of the
Foraker act.
Deiima Case in Detail.
The first case decided was that of
Elias S. A. Delima ct al, plaintiffs,
against Geo. R. Bidwell, collector of
the port Of New York, the case COM
ing to the supreme court from the
circuit court of the United States for
the district of New York.
The decision was rendered on behalf
of the majority Of the court by JUS
tice Brown, the opinion being con
Cured in by all justices, except Nc
Kenna, Shiras and White.
The decision hung upon a case com
ing from the state. of New York in
volving the levying of $4,000 in duties
on goods imported from Porto Rico
into the United States, this collection
of duty having been sustained by the
lower court. In effect the decision
was that territory acquired by the
United States is part of the United
states and not foreign territory and
that no import duties could be levied
The decision of the lower court was
reversed.
Justice Brown announced in the be
ginning of his decision that the court
undoubtedly has jurisdiction in this
case. He said the case raised the
single question whether territory &C
CURED by the United States by cessior
from a foreign power, remained "for
eign country" within the meaning OF
the tariff laws, and added: 'The ques
ton involved in this case is not wheth
er the sugars were importable article.
under the tariff laws, but whether
coming as they did from a port alleged
to be domestic, they were imported
from a foreign country-in other
words, whether they were imported
at all as that word is defined in
Woodruff VS.. Parham. We think the
decision in the Fasset case is conclus.
i've to the effect that, If the question
be whether the sugars were import.
ed or not, such question could not be
raised before the board Of general
appraisers and that whether they were
imported merchandise for the reasons
given In the Fasset case that a vessel
is not an importable article, or be
cause merchandise was not brought