The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1898-11-28

cry could not be abolished without destroy
ing the Constitution, yet slavery was abol-
ished and the Constitution survived In the
case Of local riots and interference with the
mails or with interstate commerce it was
claimed that under the Constitution the
President could not send troops into State
without the consent OF the Governor. but
the President did, In all these cases and
others that might be mentioned strict con-
struetionists have attempted 10 use the Con-
stitution to impede the operations of the
government or retard the growth Of the
Nation, but in every case it was held that
the Constitution was made for the people
and not the people for the Constitution.
When William H. Seward declared in a
speech delivered in 1850 there is a higher
law than the Constitution he meant the
moral law. In the same sense the national
welfare is higher law than the Constitu-
ton, at least to the extent that the Con-
stitution must always be construed in favor
OF the national welfare if possible.
The Constitution has often been cited
against the acquisition of territory, but
never successfully. The only ground for
1t does not contain a word either authoriz-
ing or forbidding the acquisition of terri
tory. Its trainers were intent on establish
ing government and not on defining and
prescribing all its functions and duties The
right TO acquire territory is an inherent
right of every government, an attribute of
sovereignty. Once established, every gov
ba rio
secessionists contended that the govern
ment could not constitutionally coerce
State Mr. Lincoln replied that the right of
self-defense and self representation inhered in
every government, whether granted by the
Constitution or not. The right to acquire
territory is as plainly an attribute of
sovereignty as is the right Of self-preserva-
ton. Thomas Jefferson, himself a strict
constructionist, could not find any consti-
tutional authority to purchase the Louis
lana territory, but he made the purchase
and no person has ever disputed our title
to the property. The annexation of Texas
was denounced as unconstitutional but it
was annexed. The acquisition of New Mex
leo and California at the close of the Mexi-
CONSTITUTIONAL
grounds, but they We're acquired. The anti
expansioTists of Mr. Stewards time de-
nounced the purchase of Alaska as uncon-
stitutional but the purchase was made and
the Constitution did not suffer any harm.
In fact, it is very elastic and expansive
instrument when national growth is con-
cerned
upfcs II IL.
indicates befogged state of mind on this
question. In trying to define the views of
our peace commissioners the dispatch saws:
The Philippine islands will be admins
tered as colony and the opposing argu-
mellt against colonial government stands i'm
Alaska If the United States, it is pointed
out, has no right to hold colonial possess
Sions then the United States title in Alas
ka is Vitiated. The United States appoints
a. Governor and a judge in Alaska, but it
mas not legislative power Somewhere in
the bred Scot decision it is admitted there
may nave been an obiter dictum contra
colonial. government by the United States
But, it is added that would not be held to
De vital IN the present age and under the
present circumstances.
This seems to imply that there is funda-
mental difference between colonial and ter
ritorial government, and that the United
States has no constitutional right to estab-
lish a colonial government. This is rub
bish Once admit the right of the United
States to acquire territory right that is
too clear for argument, and it may estab-
lish any kind of government it sees fit. It's
sovereignty is the same whether the possess
sion be called state, territory province
or a colony. Whatever it is called it is to
be governed from Washington until it be-
comes state. The reference to Alaska in
the Paris dispatch shows how complete and
arbitrary is the control of Congress over
all newly acquired territory. The statement
that the United States has not legislative
power in Alaska is erroneous. 1t has SUI
preme legislative power there if it choose
to exercise it. AS a matter Of fact, the act
trict" expressly states that 'there shall be
no legislative assembly in said district" and
extends the general laws of Oregon to Alas
ka. The idea that the United States cannot
establish colonial government is as ground
less as the idea that it cannot acquire terri
tory. 1t can establish any kind of govern
ment in its new possessions that it may
deem best, the only limitation being that
If they should ever become states the United
States must guarantee to them a republican
form of government. The Constitution has
expanded sufficiently to take in Hawaii and
the Philippines it will expand over them
also There is nothing the matter with the
Constitution. 1t is all right