New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-01-13
THE FATHERS ON SUBJECT TERRITORY.

Senator Hoars constitutional objection to ex-
pansion is founded on the view that the United
States has no power to acquire territory except
to incorporate 1t into the Union OF States. All
his argument turns on that point Aside from
it he is simply able to say he regards the I'M
pending acquisition as inexpedent for one rea-
son or another. When he goes beyond the ex-
preston of personal opinion AS to the disadvan-
tages and dangers Of expansion. and invokes the
Constitution as putting the question outside the
sphere OF policy into that of positive legal pos
sibility or impossblty, he takes his stand on
the declarations
The powers not delegated to the United States
by the Constitution, nor prohibited by II TO the
states are reserved to the States respectively.
or to the people-Amendment Article X.
The sovereignty which can be exercised by the
Nation as a unit Is only that which Is necessary
for accomplishing the purposes OF the Constitu-
ton. and must be either expressly granted there.
in as necessary or convenient, In the judgment
OF Congress- to accomplish the purpose expressly
declared therein.
All other sovereignty is reserved to the States
to the people.
The power to conquer alien peoples and hold
them in subjugation Is nowhere expressly
granted.
This IS the constitutional ground for his ar
gument against the power to acquire permanent
territories 1t is the exact opposite Of the view
Of all parties at the time Of our first step In ex-
pansion. The Federalsts. whose intellectual
heir Senator Hoar proclaims himself TO be,
united in saying that the unconstitutional part
of the Louisiana treaty was It's promise to adj
nit the territory into the Union, and the de-
fence OF the Republicans was that this was to
be done only in accordance with the Constitu-
ton. and that in spite Of the treaty the acqusl-
ton was still outside the Union. and to be adj
mitted only on consent Of the States as provided
for in the Constitution. Jefferson himself had
doubts rs to the constitutionalty Of any an
nexation but he seems never to have thought
territorial less legal than State additions, but
the contrary. When his Attorney General. Levi
Lincoln. gave an opinion that the Federal Gov
eminent could not acquire foreign territory, but
could with the consent OF an existing State alter
the boundary to include the new land In that
State, Jefferson sent the letter to Gallatin, who
on January 10. 1903. wrote thus In opposition to
1.ncoln's view:
The existence OF the United States Nation
presupposes the power enjoyed by every nation
Of extending their territory by treaty. and the
general power given TO the President and Sem
OF making treaties designates the organs
through which the acquisition may be made.
whilst this section provides the proper authority
wiz, Congress) for either admitting into the
Union or governing as subjects the territory
thus acquired.
TO me II would appear
First-That the United States as Nation
have inherent right TO acquire territory.
Second-That whenever that acquisition Is by
treaty the same constituted authorities In whom
the treaty making power is vested have con-
stitutionai right to sanction the acquisition.
Third-That whenever the territory has been
acquired. Congress have the power either OF ad-
hitting into the Union as new State OF OF
annexing to State, with the consent Of that
State. or Of making regulations for the govern
ment OF such territory
The only possible objection must be derived
from the Tenth Amendment. which declares that
powers no. delegated TO the United States, nor
prohibited by IL to the States. are reserved TO
the States 10 the people. As the States are
expressly prohibited from making treaties. 1t is
evident that. II the power Of acquiring territory
by treaty is not considered within the meaning
OF the amendment "a delegated TO the United
States. it must be reserved to the people. II
that lie the true construction OF the Constitution
II substantially amounts 10 this: That the
United States are precluded from and renounce
altogether the enlargement OF territory, pro-
vision sufficiently important and singular to
have deserved to he expressly enacted. Is IL
not more natural construction to say that the
power OF acquiring territory is delegated to the
United States by the several provisions which
authorize the several branches OF the Govern
ment 10 make war, to make treaties. and 10
govern the territory OF the Union?
So we find Gallatln, probably the clearest
| thinker and greatest constructive statesman OF
the old Republican party. quoting the sa me pas,
sage OF the Constitution 10 justify colonial
power that Senator Hoar relies on to forbid IT,
| in answer 10 this letter Jefferson wrote:
You right. IN my opinion as to Mr. L n
proposition: there In no constitutional difficulty
as 10 the acquisition OF territory and whether.