The San Francisco Call. Newspaper, May 28, 1901, Page 1

\ apry, et the Librarys per not ken from VOLUME LXXXIX—NO. 179. The SAN FRANCISCO, TUESDAY, MAY 28, 1B :\‘:w r“‘b.ni Ganl m.lb- 1901, PRICE F1IVE CENTS, UPREME COURT UPHOLDS PAINGIPAL CONTENTIONS OF ADMINISTRATION IN THE GOVERNMENT OF TERRITORY REGENTLY AGQUIRED BY THE UNITED STATES CONGRESS S HIGHT TO MAKE TARIFF LAWG May Lay Duty on Goods Coming From Insu- lar Ports. Foraker ActRelating to Porto Rico Upheld by Majority Decision. However, Bars Are Thrown Down in Philippines and Prompt Legis- lation May Be Needed. N ASHINGTON, May 2.—In the United States Supreme Court to-day opinions were handed down in all but two cases be- fore that court involving the relations of the United Btates to its in- rulur possessions. The two cases in which mclusion was anounced were those wn as the fourteen diamond rings and the second of the Dooley cases. indecided Dooley case deals with a se of the Porto Rican question, and ¢ dlamond rings case involves the right e free transportation of merchandise the Philippines to the United States. The original intention of the court had rn after to-day's eitting for erm, but discussion of the cases -day took about five hours, journed until to-morrow, ned the remaining cases upon s decided to-day the acted the greatest share of court what is the De Lima case and that Downes case, and of these in the Downes casec is most far-reaching, as it af- relations, whereas the with a transitional r relations ase was the first to re- n of the court, and as it uite swecpingly opposed 1 the were nment's contentions many arrived at the con- vernment had been the This view E line. suffered a decided change when the con- clusion was announced in the Downes case. The court was very evenly civided on both cases, but political lines were contro n ng Duty Must Be Returned. The De Lima case involved the power of the Government to collect a duty on rteq into the United States Rico after the ratification of the d before the passage ’ act. The court sald the Government’s contention in this case w bt y & claim that Porto Rico 1s forelg ' \¢ entire case turned th m. The court heid that ey n was not well taken—that Por- to R v t the time forelgn ter- r h t fore the duty which ted must be returned. ecis in the Downes case fol- f the dealings of the 1 t Porto Rico, a step fur- That case dealt with the legality the exact of duties on goods im- rted fre Rico Into New York er the of the Foraker act pro- the of P " ' ity upon goods shipped from the United States. In this held that such exaction was legal and constitutional. The point of the two opinions con- sidered collectively is that Port> Rico was never after the acquisition of that island foreign territory; that until Congress acted upon the ques- tion mo duty could be collected, but that as soon as Congress outlined a method of controlling the island’s rev- enues that action became binding—in other words, that Congress has power under the constitution to prescribs the manner of collecting the revenues cf the country’s insular possessions, and has the right to lay a duty on goods imported into our insular pos- sessions from the United States or exported from them into the United States. It holds, in brief, that for tax- ation purposes they are not a part «f the United States to the extent that goods shipped between their ports and the United States are entitled to the same treatment as though they were shipped between New York and New Orleans . Justice Brown delivered the court's opinion in both cases, and there were vig- orous dissenting opinions in both. In the Downes case four of the nine members of the court united in zn opinion critcizing in strong langusge the opinion of the ma-~ jority in that case. In this opposing opin- jon the Chief Justice and Justices Harlan, Brewer and Peckham united, and the Chiet Justice and Justice Harlan present- ed their views in written form. Justices Gray, Shiras, White and McKenna also, while agreeing with the conclusion an- nounced by Justice Brown, announced that they had reached the conclusion by different lines of argument, and Justices g forad o Rico t the court S A — | WHAT THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISIONS MEAN First—Constitution law is sustained. be refunded by Governmen:. mitted free of duty. L Gray, White and McKenna announced opinions outlining thelr respective posl- tions. Justice Shiras, Justice White and Justice McKenna also dissented in the De Lima case, uniting in an opinion. Jus- tice Gray also presented an independent and dissenting cpinion in that case. The small courtroom was crowded to re- pletion throughout the day, prominent Government officlals and many attorneys being present, and the proceedings were followed from etart to finish with keen interest. The other cases decided by the court were Goetze versus the United States, in- volving duties on importations from Por- to Rico, and Crossman versus the United States, duties on Hawalian imports being involved. In these two cases the De Lima case was followed, and assessment of du- ties prior to enactment of legislation for the islands was held illegal. The assessment of duties was only part- ly sustained in the cases of Dooley and Armstrong versus the United States. The dut were held legal when made during military occupation of Porto Rico and prior to ratification of the peace treaty, but fllegal when levied after the peace treaty but prior to the passage of the Foraker act. FORMKER ACT UPHELD BY COURT'S DECISION Congress Has the Right to Legislate for Our New Possessions. —_— WASHINGTON, May 27. — Justice Brown delivered the opinion of the Court in the case of Downes versus Collector Bidwell, of the port of New York, in which suit was brought by Downes to recover back duties to the amount of $659 35 exacted and paid under protest up- on certain oranges consigned to the plaintiff at New York and brought thith- er from the port of San Juan, island of Porto Rico during the month of No- vember, 1900. This case involved the question wheth- er merchandise brought into the port of New York from Porto Rico since the passage of the Foraker act is exempt from duty, notwithstanding the thira section of that act, which requires the payment of “fifteen per cent of the du- = does not follow flag. wapineTer 8e - tles which are required to be levied, col- lected and paid upon like articles of mer- chandise imported from forelgn coun- tries.” The Circuit Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York, sustained the Government in this posi- tion in imposing a duty. The Bupreme Court affirmed the opiplon | of the Circult Court, saying: ‘“We are of the opinion that the island of Porto Rico is a territory appurtenant, and belonging to the United States, but not a part of the United States within the revenue clause of the constitution; that the Foraker act is constitutional so far as it imposes duties upon imports from such islands and that the plaintift cannot recover back the duties exacted in the case." Tho opinion of the court went into the case very fully. Justice Brown early in his opinion outlined the distinction be- tween this case and the De Lima case, which had just been declded, saying: “In the case of De Lima versus Bld- well, we hold that upon the ratification of the treaty of peace with Spain, Porto Rico ceased to be a forelgn country and that duties were no longer collectable upon merchandise brought from that island. We are now asked to hold that it became a part of the United States within that provision of the constitution which declares that ‘all dutles, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States.’ If Porto Rico be a part of the United States, the Foraker act, imposing duties upon its products is unconstitutional, not only by reason of a violation of the uniformity clause, but because by section 9,/ ‘vessels bound to or from one State,’ cannot ‘be obliged to enter, clear or pay dutles in another.’ Not Answered by Constitution, “The case also involves the broader question whether the revenue clauses of the constitution extend of their own force to|our newly acquired Territories. The constitution itself does not answer the question, Its solution must be found in the nature of the government created by that instrument, in the opinion of its contemporaries in the practical con- struction put upon it by Congress and in the decisions of this court.” — AT T i XY T T n"l""...\\m.,.lu * L3 FOUR JUSTICES WHO FIGURE PROMINENTLY IN THE INSU- LAR DECISIONS. & Justice Brown then entered upon a re- view of the formation of the Government and the constitution provision requiring that “duties, imposts and exclses shall be uniform throughout the United States,” saying that “It is explained by subsequent provisions of the constitution that ‘no tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any State’ and ‘no preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those of another, nor shall vessels bound from or to one port be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another.’ " In short, he concluded on that point, “the constitution deals with States, their people and their representatives.” The acquisition of territory and the for- mation of Territories was discussed and many authorities quoted. As a result of these citations the Justice lald down the following general conclusions: “Eliminating, then, from the opinfons of this court all expressions unnecessary to the disposition of this particular case, and gleaning therefrom the exact point de- cided in each, the following proposition may be considered as established: 1. That the District of Columbia and the Territorics are not States within the judicial clause of the con- stitution giving jurisdiction in cases between citizens of different States. 2. That Territories are not States Second—Congress has plenary power to legislate for territorial possessions of United States. Third—Validity of collection of customs taxes by military authorities in Porto Rico both before and after ratification of treaty of peace and before tak- ing efiect of Porto Rican act is sustained. " Fourth—Customs taxes were wrongfully LO"CCted on imports into United States from Porto Rico after ratification of treaty of peace and before taking effect of Porto Rican act, on imports into United States from Philippines since ratification of ireaty of peace, and on imports from Hawaii mto Umted States af- ter annexation and before taking effect of Hawaiian territorial government law. | Fifth—Validity of duties collected both in United-States and in Porto Rico under the Porto Rlcan act is sustained, and the constitutionality of that | Sixth—All duties collected on imports from Porto Rico between ratification of treaty of peace and taking effect of Porto Rican law, all duties collected on imports from Hawaii between annexation and taking effect of territorial law, and all duties collected on imports from Philippines, if paid under protest, must | Seventh—Until Congress shall enact a a law providing for the collection of duties on imports from Philippines all goods from those islands must be ad- -+ within the meaning of the revised statutes, section 709 permitting writs of error from this court in cases where the validity of a State’s statute is drawn in question. 8. That the District of Oolllm'bh and the Territories are States, as that word is used, in treaties with foreign powers, with respect to the owner- ship, disposition and inheritance of property. 4. That the Territories are not with- in the clause of the constitution pro- viding for the creation of a Supremo Court and such inferior courts as Congress may see fit Yo establish. 5. That the constitution does not apply to foreign countries or to triala therein conducted, and that Congress may lawfully provide for such trials .before consular tribunals, without ths intervention of a grand or petit jury. 6. That where the constitution has been once formally extended by Con- gress to Territories, neither condi- tions nor the Territorial Legislature can enact laws inconsistent therewitl. In his opinion Justice Brown referred at length to the decision of Chief Justice Taney in the Dred Scott case, giving es- pecial consideration to the sentimént ex- pressed by him that ‘“there is no power given by the constitution to the Federal Government to establish or maintain col- onies bordering on the United States or at a distance, to be ruled and governed at its own pleasure; and Jf a new State Is admitted+it needs no further legislation by Co because the constitution ft- self d the relative rights and powors and du of the State and the citizens of the State and the Federal Government. t no power is given to acquire a Terri- tory to be held and governed permanently in that character.” Country’s Conditions Change. Justice Brown expressed the opinion that it was unfortunate, in view of the existing opinion of the country at the time the Scott opinion was rendered, just bgfore the opening of the civil war, that the Chief Justice had felt impelled to dis- cuss the question upon its merits. “It 1s,” he sald, “‘sufficient to say that the country did not acquiesce in the opin- fon and that the civil war which ghortlv thereafter followed produced such changes in judicial as well as public sen- timent as to seriously impalr rhe author- “The power to prohibit slavery in the Territories is so different from the power to impose dutles upon Territorial products and depends upon such different provisions of the constitu. tion that they can scarcely be considered as analogous unless we assume broadly that every clause of the conmstitution at- tached to the Territories as well as Lo the States, a claim quite Inconsistent with the position of the court in the Canter case. The difficulty with the Dred Scott case ‘was that the court refused to make a dis- tinction between property in general and a wholly exceptional class of property. Taking up the case in hand the Justice continued his opinion, sdying: Organization of Territories, ““The practical Interpretation put by Congress upon the constitution has been long continued and uniform to the effect that the constitution is applicable to ter- ritories acquired by purchase or conquest only when and so far as Congress shall 80 direct. Notwithstanding its duty to ‘guarantee to every State i this Union a republican form of government,’ Congress did not hesitate in the original organiza- tion of the Territories of Louisiana, Flor- Jda, the the Northwest Territory and its ‘subdivision of Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Ilinois and Wisconsin and still more re- cently in the case of Alaska to establish a form of government bearing a much greater analogy to a British crown colony than a republican State of America and to vest the legislative power either in a Governor and council or a Governor and Judges to be appointed by the President. ““We are also of the opinion that power to acquire territory by treaty implies not only the power to govern such territory but to prescribe upon what terms the United States will receive its inhabltants and what their status shall be In what Chief Justice Marshall termed the ‘Amer- fcan empire.’ There seems to be no mid- dle ground between this position and the doctrine that if their inhabitants do not become immediately upon annexation cit- izens of the United States their children thereafter born, whether savages or civ- Continued on Second Page. CONSTITUTION, THE FLAG AND THE [SLANDS Views in Conflict With Those Expressed by Brown. Concurring Opinion in the Downes Case Reached on Different Grounds. Dissenting Decision by Chief Justice Fuller Joined by Harlan, Brewer and Peckham, HINGTON, May %.~Fol= lowing Justice Brown's opine fon in the Downes case, Jus~ tico White delivered an opine fon, in which hé sald Justices in the decres affirming the judgment of the Downes case, but placing it on grounds which he sald were not only dife farent from but in conflict with those ex- pressed by Justice Brown. The question the provision of the constitution giving Congress power to lay dutles, imposts and excises, but requiring that they should be uniform “throughout the United States, had been violated by the Foraker act ime Rico Into the United States. The propo- sitions, elaborately argued at the trial, that the Government of the United States, being created by the constitution, that instrument, where it limits the power of wherever its authcrity is exerted, were corceded. There never could be any seri- ous question that when the Government of the United States exgreises an authority which the constitution confers the appli- —— Shiras and McKenna united, concurring at {ssue in this case, he sald, was whether posing dutles on goods coming from Porto the Government, does so everywhere, cable limitations of the constitution con« trol ft. While this was true universally n every case, the question was not whether the constitution followed the flag, but, granting that it did so, what provi- slon was applicable to particular cases. The cases which it was sald were an ex- ception were certain general limitations in the censtitution in favor of liberty and property which withdraw all power from Congress. BSuch limitations were every- where applicable, and of course could never be transgressed. In view of this, the opinion went on, “there is reason then to contend in this case that Congress can destroy the libertles of the people of Porto Rico by exercising in their regard powers against freedom and justice which the constitution has absolutely denfed.” The sole and only issue is, Has Porto Rico, at the time of passage of the act in question, been incorporated into and become an integral part of the United States? Considering this question, Justice White affirmed that the rule of international law was that the relation which an acquired country would bear to the acquiring coun- try in the absence of treaty stipulations was to be determined by that country con- formably to its institutions. The United States possessed the same powers on this subject as any gqther nation. Right to Acquire Territory. Justice White then went exhaustively into the history of the United States and of its acquired territories, and in support of his assertion that our history from the beginning had manifested that this power was possessed by the United States. An acknowledgment of our right to acquire territory, coupled with a contention that when acquired the territory was abso- lutely and unconditionally incorporated into the United States, he sald, was to ad- mit the power to acquire and immediately to deny its beneficial existence. To hold that the treaty-making power cannot in- sert conditions in acquiring would deprive that power of a necessary attribute and would confer upon it the authority to de- stroy the Government of the United States. If millions of inhabitants of allen territory, if acquired by treaty, can, with- out the desire or consent of the people of the United States, speaking through Con- gress, be immediately and irrevocably in. corporated into the United States, the whole structure of the Government can be overthrown. While thus aggrandizing the treaty-making power on the one hami, the constitution at the same time min- imizes it on the other, in that It strips that autherity of any right to acquire ter- ritoy upon any condition which would guard the pcople of the United States frem the evil of immediate incorporation. ‘What also becomes of the popular branch of Congress, which, though it might be unwilling to agree to the Incorporation of alien races, would be impotent to prevent its accomplishment? Forever Part of Union. To meet the evil effect of this view, its advocates clalmed that all citizenship of the United States is precarious and fleeting, and subject to be rold at any moment like property. He could not assent that the safe- guards, privileges, rights and immunities of the constitution are so ephemeral that they could be destroyed by a mere act of sale. Our forefathers belleved thers was no power to dispose of soversignty over Continued on Second Page.