New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-01-19

Constitutional obligation, and Congress may. II It
chooses enact at washington all munelpai Jaw,
does for The S District Of &c ana pssG
81; Sc Fed Rep. i5s)
orr FORMER COLONIES
Under the ordinance Of 1884, as subsequently modi-
fed the Territories OF Ohio Mississippi. Indiana
Michigan and Illinois had Governor judges and
Council appointed selected by Congress; gov
ernments as purely colonial. except for delegate
In Congress. as any to-day maintained by England
TerTory part Of the h.hed Sn
other example Of colonial adminstratIon..a, local
Legislature Governor exercising the functions or
tering the old Spanish Code-al appointed by the
PRESIDENT; Federal statutes operative only IN crlin
leans e HOW ' 80. S Of Nicholson Ga Of Delaware
said: "1t is in the nature Of colony whose COM
ton. continuing the existing Spanish government;
Spain, putting all the Territorial officers in the
place OF the. Kings officers. and placing the ap.
alone" Yet the validity OF the Orleans government
vas repeatedly sustained by the supreme GU sny
respects It might furnish acceptable model OF
civil rule by Congress for Porto Rico the Philip
pines, and even Hawaii
ALASKA NOW A COLONY.
Alaska was coded to us in 1867 without any treaty
covenants for future admission State. The
Constitution and Federal laws have not been made
operative therein. and only such statutes have been
extended over It as circumstances gradually required
1t is an unorganlzed territory. governed directly
from Washington O. S. Rev. Stat. Sec l,sgil
being 400 miles and It's furthest point 2iOo miles
from Seattle. The Aleutan Islands extend even into
thirty-two years a few judicial and executive, but
no legislative, functions OF government nave peen
Judge Dawson could confer upon Alaska such
powers, judicial and executive as they deemed
tionably within the Constitutional power OF Con-
gress 10 withhold from the inhabitants OF Alaska
S. SIS power to l's''''' and make laws '' Fed R.
CAN HOLD TERRITORIES PERMANENTLY.
The right TO govern Territories temporarily or
permanently is equally In the discretion Of Con-
gress. The opponents OF expansion urge, however
that every foot Of soil acquired by this Nation is
impressed with trust or franchise OF Statehood.
and that the Constitution prohibits It's acquisition
except for such ultimate PURPOSE the permsses
mandatory 1t is said to be unconstitutional to hold
rerToTy even eNreps II in preD
aration for eventual Statehood.
DRIED SCOTT CASE.
This objection is based exclusively upon the de-
csion OF the Supreme Court in the bred Scott
case. Chief Justice Taney's words are now his
toric: There is certainly no power given by the
Constitution to the Federal Government" he said.
'to establish or maintain colonies bordering on the
United States or at distance TO be ruled and
governed its pleasure, nor to enlarge Its
territorial limits in any way except by the admis-
sion OF new States That power Is PLAINLY am yaca
ton Of territory not fit for admission at the ti ne
come con State, and not to be held a colony" us
How. 446. 40 ,,., l., -.
dctum. as often contended. but a vital part of the
decision; essential step In an elaborate argu-
the Missouri Compromise was unconstitutional and
bred Scott slave and not citizen r. ,,or hoar
lra6S
judiGally reiterated Nc court ever concufseo IN
with the bad emnence Of ante-belum conflicts; It's
very title is odous and SENDS shuddss through
f feedav AGAINST RgDpe teTritorial expansion
Third-The decision is either law or not law IL
sheraton. and invalid as to slavery. a primary
issue. It must stand or fan as whole. Eence we
cislon is law then the Thirteenth. Fourteenth and
Fifteenth Amendments are not law. the results o., o,
was unconstitutional slavery can be maintained IN
all our Territories. and the negro has mo rights
400. This dilemma has been overlooked
Fourth-The major premise Of Judge Taneys
ity to acquire territory is derived from the power
to admit States. That proposition has never been
contrary, unanimous benches have declared our
and irrespective also OF any franchise OF state,
hood, as primary attribute OF sovereignty ana
Taneys major premise has been specifically over
ruled three times ZIG Wall. 4S4 l3o l. s.. ~; ~
u. D..
terly fallacious. all his arguments fall with It.
His conclusion. therefore. that we cannot hold Ter
ritories per falls also and Is as dead 10 the
American people as the Stamp act or statutes
Fifth-The utter futillty Of the declaration should
be observed. II is without practical value. What
right had the Court to make it? What Jurisdiction
the Senate? Can the President be enjoined? How
will the Supreme Court prohibit this SOVEREIGN Ma =
ton from extending Its sovereignty over conquered
territory? The error is fundanental Judge Taney
decision was intended 10 and did encroach upon the
pO1Itf al If he
thority to do So His decision Pre- an@ ia
other cases, was not law when uttered and is not
sixth~An exhaustive investigation Of the writing,
end speeches OF the founders of our Government ana
a scrutiny Of the proceedings attending our acgul-
siton OF the Northwest. Louisiana and tlorlda Ter
ritories establish beyond dispute the historic mac
curacy Of Judge fancy assertion that a trust OF
franchise OF Statehood was Intended 10 De nm !
pressed upon all newly acquired territory. Edmuld
Randolph submitted TO the Federai conVenI9 ~ M
first propositions relative to new states sn1 M
tories Madison offered amendments. ana then me
present isnsnage was a. nyeTneur Morris During
the controversy over the Louisiana cession in SO5
meaning o, the third section OF the Fourth Article
He answered: Il very certain had 1t not IN
Ia fbe @ons1ituton knew then as well
as do now that all North AmeTlcn mut at fsx
days later he again replied Il mistook the GILL hd
OF your inquiry which suostantaeiE s trr,tnrv
which did not belong TO the United States when the
a%ay w't thoneht When we should acquire
Canada and Louisiana. 1t would be proper to GOV "
them as pryn and ,S SoS Srd e section ITO Of he
Fourth Article went far as circumstances would
hermit TO establish tho exclusion q Nor. Nrt.'
ia2D
ANTI CHANGED ATTITUDE.
The onposition TO acquiring Louisiana was based
,,,or tho treaty. covenants guaranteeing ultimate
statehood No opposition developed to acquiring
and holding per territories or dependencies That
right seems to have been assumed without dis
cnss,on (story. Constitution. Section l%6). Tho
resolution OF the Massachusetts, Legislature Is one
Of many similar public expressions: rhe ahheAa-
A., :, ou,.iaoa to the Union transcends the Con-
,,.,,,,onaI noUer Of the Government Of the United
States II forms new confederacy to which the
S.a,eS united by the former compact are not bound
o. 1s'I lie OF quincy" D. 26) The Supreme
Sourt has long since overrued these objections
~ ,bern merely TO show that at the beginning
ClLo e-.-. nsInnlsis acknoMedGed