The Portland daily press., 1899-01-12
NOT PERMANENT.


been clear out and without qualification.
ley In Utah case involving the question
of polygsmy in which the justice said:
at would be absurd to say that . nation
has power to acquire territory and not the
power TO govern Il"
Such being the authorities what
grounds, be asked, have the supporters OF
the resolution to stand upon.
Mr.. Vest had contendsd In his speech
that history was against the assumption
Of power W this country to establish gov
ernments and that the character Of our
war for Independence demonstrated that
the men Of that day would not have con-
tenanced such proceeding.
On the con trary ME- Foraker held that
there was no compliant In revolutionary
times OF colonial policy. There are
many complaints on other scores, but
none on this SO 1t must be assumed that
they had no such objection as the Mis-
souri, Senator had oontcnded.
Mr.. Platt of Connecticut called atten-
tion to article i've OF the treaty of France
with the United States, dra wn BY BsnJa.
min franklin which provided that II
Canada should be obtained by the United
s tates 1t should be dependent on this
country.
ing is said about the consent of the Cana
dams, either.
In reply 20 question by Mr.. Allen OF
Nebraska, MIR. Foraker declared that in
every instance were the United States
acquired territory, the constitution of the
United States was extended over IL and
that all legislation provided by Congress
for such acquired territory must be and
ALWAYS was distinctly in accordance with
the constitution. Mr.. 1illmAn Of South
Carolina, inquired Of MIR. Foraker wheth-
er any OF tho states could discriminate
against territory on account OF the color
or previous conditions of its Inhabitants.
replied Mr.. Foraker. when IL arises we
shall meet It, l wish some OF the states
that DO dis criminate were outside and we
had q trial of the question now. (Great
laughter MIR. Foraker then took up that
part of the argument of MIR. Vest In
which he based his statementsi on the
bred Scot decision. He analyze the de-
court
DID NOT SUPPORT THE POSITION
and with reference to the acquisition and
government of territory that MIR. Vest
had said it did. and that really only one
Of the associate Justices stood squarely
the full forcs of the decision. Mr.. Fora
ksr then entered upon a constitutional ar
Qument in reply to the points made by
Senator Vest and Gallery in support of
the resolution. In beginning a discus
sion OF the speech Of Mr.. Hoar. Mr. For
aker said:
II listened, as always do listen to the
speech of the Senator from MBssachu.
sets. 1t was speech of great ability
ard power, such as he always delivers,
but when 1t is reduced 1t amounts only to
this-that the government of the United
States has only the power to acquire ter
ritory for constitutional purposes, and as
to what the constitutional purposes are
the Senator from Massachus shall be
the sole and exclusive judge"
MIR. Foraker's remarks brought Mr..
Hoar out for further explanation of his
position. Interrupting the Ohio Senator,
he said:
"lf We thought 1t necessary for our
national defenss to annex an outlying
territory and II the people of that terri
tory objected to our acquisition OF it. j
should consider the subjugation of 1T as u
great national crime to he repudiated and
condemned and l should say the United
States would better go down beneath the
waters o. the Pacific In honor rather than
disgrace itself by such condition
MIR. Hosr said he did not mean to say
that a great continent upon which
roamed few thousand s.vages having no
government and being incapable of gov
eminent should be passed by or that CIV
ilization should stop at its threshold
MIR. Foraker repudiated the conclusions
reached by Mr.. Hoar.
LAS i now understand the senator
from Massachusetts, said Mr.. Foraker,
1.-THE