The "conclusion and judgment" of the Court was announced by Justice Brown. He stated the
issue of the case:

 This case involves the question whether the merchandise brought into the port of
 New York from Porto Rico since the passage of the Foraker Act, is exempt from
 duty, notwithstanding the third section of that act, which requires the payment of
 fifteen per centum of the duties which are required to be levied, collected and
 paid upon like articles of merchandise imported from foreign countries."

The question resolved itself, therefore, about the status of Puerto Rico in relation to the United States. If
Puerto Rico was a part of the United States, the Foraker Act in consequence would be unconstitutional,
violating Article I, Section 8, clause 1, which provides that "all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform
throughout the United States," and section 9 of that article, which provides that "vessels bound to or from
one State" cannot "be obliged to enter, clear or pay duties in another." Justice Brown cited De Lima v.
Bidwell.[i.e.,]11 decided just previously, in which the Court held that Puerto Rico ceased to be a foreign
country upon the ratification of the treaty of peace with Spain. The whole question of the civil rights of the
inhabitants rested upon the question here before the Court, namely, the status of Puerto Rico. Justice
Brown stated this view for the majority of the Court:

 We are therefore of the opinion that the Island of Puerto Rico is a territory
 appurtenant and belonging to the United States, but not a part of the United
 States within the revenue clauses of the Constitution; that the Foraker Act is
 constitutional, so far as it imposes duties upon imports from such island, and that
 the plaintiff cannot recover the duties exacted in this case.12

 A concurring opinion of great lengthwas written by Justice White, with whom concurred Justices
 Shiras and McKenna. Justice Gray wrote a very short opinion concurring also in the result. Justices Fuller,
 Harlan, Brewer, and Peckham dissented in a most vigorous opinion by Justice Fuller and in a separate and
 even more emphatic opinion by Justice Harlan. Of all these various opinions, including that of Justice
 Brown, the concurring opinion written by Justice White was the most important because it established a
 new theory that ultimately became the doctrine of the Court with respect to the constitutional status of the
 territories acquired by the United States. Justice White developed the doctrine of "incorporation," which
 was entirely without precedent, a doctrine that was to play such an important part in respect to the rights of
 the inhabitants of the extra-continental territories.

 To develop the theory of incorporation, Justice White went into a most elaborate historical review
 of the various documents of territorial acquisition. The treaty for the purchase of Louisiana, he said,
 provided that "'The inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be incorporated in the Union ....' Observe how
 guardedly the fulfillment of this pledge is postponed until its accomplishment is made possible by the will
 of the American people, since it is to be executed only 'as soon as possible according to the principles of
 the Federal Constitution.' "13 If the term "incorporated" as used here may seem a promise of ultimate
 statehood to the annexed population of Louisiana, such a meaning was not read by Justice White. He
 read this as meaning that these inhabitants would come in as an "incorporated territory" and that the
 promise would then be fulfilled because they would belong to a Union formed not only of States, but
 States and incorporated Territories. He said:

 It is said, however, that the treaty for the purchase of Louisiana took for granted
 that the territory ceded would be immediately incorporated into the United States,
 and hence the guarantees contained in the treaty related, not to such
 incorporation, but was a pledge that the ceded territory was to be made a part of
 the Union as a State. The minutest analysis, however, of the clauses of the
 treaty fails to disclose any reference to a promise of statehood, and hence it can
 only be that the pledges made referred to incorporation into the United
 States... 14


384