Daily inter mountain. [volume] (Butte, Mont.) 1881-1901, 1899-01-18
IN FAVOR OF
EXPANSION
An Address. By a Well Known
New York Lawyer.
HIS ARGUMENT In BRIEF
sovereignty Exists in the People, Not
in the Observation-Disclosures
ions Are Cited,
HIS ARGUMENT in BRIEF

Albany, N. Y, Jan. 1S.-Following is
an abstract of an address on Our Right
to Acquire and Hold Foreign Territory"
delivered before the New York State Bar
association at its annual meeting in this
city today by Charles A. Gardiner, coun-
sci for the elevated railroads of New
York city:
Mr.. Gardiner began with the following
proposition:
THE sovereign nations of the world
possess equal rights and equal powers.
Their equality is perfect, their independ-
ence absolute. Between them, national
constitutions are unknown. In external
or international relations the United
States is assumed by all other sover-
eighties to hold certain powers unre-
strained by constitutional limitations.
That assumption is correct, based upon
the fundamental canon of the law OF
nations. The United States may ratify
it's proposed treaty with Spain, and no
other nation has any right to question it's
political or constitutional power to do
So"
The speaker cOntended that sovereignty
exists in the people, not in the const1tu-
lloll, "lliCl 10 llLti L g t"" iAN ~ >HS
people. In internal matters of govern
ment, power not granted by the corstl-
tuition to the federal government are re-
served to the states. In external mat
terS, powers not expressly forbidden can
be exercised by it. Under the latter head
comes the question of acquiring territory.
All problems Of expansion, Mr.. Gardiner
said, are political, not prejudicial, ana
are not covered by the constitution. Po-
litical questions depend Cnly upon the
will OF the sovereign. In this case the
sovereign is the people of the United
States, represented by the federal gov
eminent. The government has not only
a right to acquire, but to dispose of terri
tory. The government of territories IS
not constitutional, and in it congress is
not limited in any manner Whatever.
Scattered through his address were
many references to supreme court de-
cisions, sustaining the claims lie made.
In reference to the government OF terri
tories he said:
"Chief Justice Waite said: All terri
tory within the jurisdiction of the United
States not included in any state must
necessarily be governed by or under the
authority of congress-. . Is Il s. 1t has
fun and complete legislative authority
over the people of the territories and all
the departments of the territorial gov
ernnents.' G01 U. S. 1922. In a later
case the court decided that in crdaininS
government for the territories all the dis
erection which belongs to the Legislative
power is vested in congress- Ola L. ).
40, the power of congress over the terri
tories is general and plenary,' said Mr..
Justice Bradley Q36 U. S. Az, and the
court, summarizing the whole matter,
announced this opinion through MIR. JUS
ticc Brewer: A territory is a political
community organized by congress, all
whose powers are created by congress?
and all whose acts are subject to con
gressional supervision Q59 u. S. 446).'
Mr.. Gardiner referred to the bred
Scott de,ision, which has been quoted
as supporting the claim that expansion
is unconstitutional, and in which Justice
Taney said: There is certainly nc
power given by the constitution to the
federal government" he said, "tO estob,
, lish or maintain colonies bordering on tine
United States or at a distance, to b6
; ruled and governed at its own pleasure
nor to enlarge it's territorial limits II
5 any way except by the admission of new
; states. That power is plainly given
q, q Il g 1T 1t has been held to authorize
the acquisition of territory not fit for ad,
mission at the time, but to be admitted
Il = 1t is acquired to become 6
state and not to be held as a colony" q:
How, 446, 44O.
Mr.. Gardiner said: 81 am of the opin.
ion thai this declaration is not a dictum
as often contended, but a vital part o.
; the decision; an essential step in an elab'
crate argument: a point necessarily in
volved in deciding that the Missouri COM
promise was unconstitutional and Dret
Scott a slave and not a citizen. The de
cision is either law or not aw. 1t can
| not be valid as to colonies. a secondary
consideration, and invalid as to slavery
, a primary issue. It must stand OF fal
} as a whole. Hence we have this dilemma
= If today the bred Scott decision is law
1 then the thirteenth, fourteenth n ff
3 teenth amendments are not law; the re
suits Of the rebellion are nullified: TIT
Missouri compromise was u%nconstitu
ti0nal; slavery can be maintained in al
y our territories. and the negro has NJ
, rights which man Is bound to respect
1 40 How, 40.
l This dilemma has overlooked" Mr.
l Gardiner vent on to assert, that tn,
= laws of the United States do not apply
, to any territory moi in possession of tn
!, government when they were enacted
= Thus the relations of newly acquired ter
!, ritory would stand in the same relation.
to the states regarding the tariff as the!
, did before being acquired" Mr.. Caroline
gave credit to the press Of the countr!
for the growth of the expansion senti
ment, and called upon the bar to give it:
support to the work of spreading it.
=
I NOTTCE m CREpITOpS