The age-herald., 1899-01-12


 as that of Justice Marshall in the early days of the republic. Such being the au- thorities, what ground, he asked, have the supporters of the resolution to stand upon. MT. Vest had contended in his speech that history was against the assumption of power of this republic to establish colonial governments and that the character of our war for independence demonstrated that the men of that day would not have counten- anced such proceeding.
 There Was No Complaint
 On the contrary MT. Foraker held that there was no complaint in revolutionary times of a colonial policy. There were many complaints on other scores, but none on this, that it must be assumed that they had no such objection as the Missouri senator had contended. On the contrary, there were indications that they had in mind the poss bility of the acquisition of territory, and MT. Foraker quoted from MT. Governeur Morris letter to Livingston, in which he said that the United States were destined to control the whole of the territory of North America.
 MT. President" said MT Foraker, after quoting from Morris at length. "there is marked difference between a framer of the constitution and an interpreter of it."
 MT. Platt of Connecticut callad attention to article of the treaty of France with llt | Iiltu OtdltS, WHICH was ut avn up by Benjamin Franklin, which provided that if Canada should be obtained by the United States it should be dependent upon this country.
 "Yes," said MT. Foraker land nothing is said about the consent of the Canadians either"
 Accords With the Constitution
 In reply to a question by MT. Allen, of Nebraska, MT. Foraker declared that in every instance where the United States acquired territory the constitution of the United States was extended over it and that all legislation provided by congress for such acquired territory must be and always is distinctly in accordance with the constitution.
 NJ. 1iilman, of South Carolina, inquired of MT. Foraker whether any of the states could discriminate against a territory on account of the color or previous condition of it's inhabitants.
 "That question is not before now replied Mir. Foraker. 'When it arises we shall meet it. I wish some of the states that do discriminate were outside and we had a trial of the question now" Great laughter)
 MT. Foraker then took up that part of tho argument of MT. Vest of Missouri in support of the resolution, in which he based his statements upon the Dred Scott decision. He analysed the decision, show ing that a majority of the court did not support the position with reference to the acquisition and government of territory that MT. Vest had said 1t did, and that really only one of the associate justices stood squarely with Chief Justice Fancy in support of the full force of the decision
 Mir Foraker then entered upon a con- stitutiona argument in reply to the points made by MT Vest in his speech in support of the resolution and by MT. Caffery, of Louisiana, in support of the resolution.
 Senator Hoar's Speech
 In the beginning a discussion of the speech of MT. Hoar, MT. Foraker said: "I lis- tened, as I always listen, to the speech of the senator from Massachusetts. It was a speech of great ability and power, such as he always delivers, but when it is duced it amounts only to this, that the gov ernment of the United States has only the power to acquire territory for constitution al purposes, and as to what those constitu- tional purposes are, the senator from Mas sachusetts shall be the sole and exclusive judge"
 MT. Foraker's remarks brought MT. Hoar out for a further explanation of his posi- tion. Rising and interrupting the Ohio sena- tor he said If we thought it necessary for our national defense to annex an outIy- ing territory, and if the people of that ter ritory objected to our acquisition of it, should consider the subjugation of it as a great national crime to be repudiated and condemned, and I should say the United States would better go down beneath the waters of the Pacific in honor rather than disgrace itself by such action.'
 The assertion of the temporary character of our possession of the Philippines created a stir in the chamber. MT. Foraker reit- erated it. We could not desert the people of the islands, he said, and subject them to the risks of disorder. anarchy, misrule and mob violence while they might be still unfit
 (Ccntinued on Third Page).