The Alaska daily empire., 1921-06-15

(Continucd from Page One.)

(CoAlinucd rom Page One.b
 on the ground that the said amend ed complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a canse O. actloA. In support Of the delnnrref 1t is argued, CD, that there is na allegation ill the amended complaint that the route over which the ship; ment in question is proposed 10 be sent is a route for which the Inter- state Commerce Commission h45 prescribed rate tariffs and hence does not come within the pToyiso os the Act; (2),' that usel if it were true that the said route was o.,4 for which the Interstate CommercA Commission has prescribed rate tariff, still the amended complaint states no facts showing that the Act ln question is uncons titUtionai.
 1 think both points are well taken. As to the first one, it may be ob- served that if the particular ship meAt in question is not coming over g route for which the Interstate Commerce Commission has prescrib ed tariff rates, then the matter does Aot come within the prOyiso ot the statute and the said shipment and Alaska are not discrninated against i1 any way whatsoever
 As to the second point to-wt, the question of the constitutionality oi the above entitled Act, commonly known as the "Jones Shipping Bill the contentious of the respective parties are as follows: Plaintiff contend that seIion 27 of said Ace violates the demand for equality placed upon the CongressionaE en- actments by subsection 6 of SectiTnl of Article I of the COnstitption, which provides: 'No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or. revenue to tha ports Of one state over those .of another; nor shall vessels bound to, or from, one state, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay duties in another
 And they rely largely upon the opinion oTthe majority of the court | in the Case of Downs vs. Bidwell, reported in 1S2 U. S, page PA, where the court had under consider ation the question as to whether or ! not the Foraker Act in imposing 1 duties upon merchandise shipped 1 from Porto Rico was constitutional | It was urged that although the court ! in that case declared that Congress had the right to levy duties upon goods shipped from Porto Rico, yet ! it had that right because Porto Rico had not been incorporated in the ! United States, and remarks of the court are cited which. it is alleged, show that if Porto Rico had been i incorporated in the United States, 1 the Foraker Act would have been in violation of that provision of the 1 Constitution which prescribes that 1 ail ''duties. imposts and | excises i shall be uniform throughout the United States" The argument pro ceeds that as Alaska has been in corporated in the United States, the Constitution applies here in full force, and so the Jones Act, by dis eliminating against the ports of Al aska, is obnoxious to that prohibi- 1 tion against the preferring of the rorts of one state to another.
 Alaska In Union
 On the other hand defendant con tends that Alaska not being a state of the Union, the clause alleged to have been contravened is inapplic- able
 The argument advanced by plain tiffs would be conclusive if the Ian gua2e of the two sections of the Constitution were the same, but 1 they are not the same. The section as to the uniformity of duties, i'm posts and excises. prescribes that such duties, etc, shall be uniform | throughout the United States i; whereas the section prohibiting pref ererces between the ports of the statee refers only ito the ports ol one state over those of another" l When Alaska became incorporated in><the4 United States it became | part thereof, it is true, but never theless it sustained different rela. | ton to the whole United States from that which the states themselves oc. ieupied. In speaking of the power l to lay and collect duties, imposts ana excises, Chief Justice Marshal said in the case of Loughborougn v Blake, , Wheaton, BY:
 "The power ito Jay and collect du ties, imposts, and excises may be eX- ercised, < and must be exercised 1 throughout the United States. Does this term designate the whole, or any particular portion of the Amerl- can empire? Certainly this question can admit but of one answer. It is the name given to our great repub- lie, which is composed of States and Territories. The District of Colum bia, or the territory west of the Mis- souri, is not less within the United States than Maryland and Pennsyl- vania; and it is not less necessary, on the principles of our Constitu ton, iIat uniformity in the imposI' tion of imposts, duties and eZeises, should be observed in the one, than in the other"
 To say that certain thing mus; prevail throughout the, United States would, of course. include Alaska, be- cause Alaska is a part of the United