The times., 1899-09-12

Court decision, to the effect that the
territories acquired by Congress whether
| by deed of cession from the original
| States. or by treaty with a foreign country,
are held with the object, as soon as their
population and condition justify it, OF be-
ing admitted into the Union as States,
upon an equal footing with the original
States in all respects
| The principle of this dictum. Mr.. Hender-
son urges, is recognized in all our treaties,
from that of the Northwest Territory ces-
sion by Virginia, down to that by which
We obtained Alaska from Russia In each
there was a clause, providing that the
inhabitants of the ceded territory shall be
! incorporated in the Union of the United
| States. and admitted as soon as possible, "
! etc. But, in the late Treaty with Spain
! this provision was omitted, and, after
ratification, the Senate passed resolution
declaring that it was not intended to in
corporate the inhabitants of the Philip
| pine Islands into the citizenship of the
United States, nor to permanently annex
| the archipelago as part of its integral ter
ritory.
! Mr.. Hendersons position. in view of
these decisions and statements, may be
summarized thus: The United States has
no right to annex the Philippines without
! the consent of the Tagal tribe. The fact
| that it annexed Louisiana, Florida, Cali
fornia, and so on. without the consent of
the local populations does not matter to
| him.
! If it had the consent and cooperation of
Aguinaldo and his Malay cutthroats the
| United States would still be unable to ac-
quire the Philippines unless with the
purpose of making full-fedged citi-
zens of the natives. He denies
/ the right of Congress to take over
territory except upon that understanding
and he quotes, vaguely, several judicial de-
cisions, not apparently very pertinent, in
support of the contention.
There is room as wide as the ocean for
academic discussion as to how far abstract
+, reinements Of constitution and law ought
/ to affect the action of Congress in many
! directions. As practical proposition, they
cannot be shown to have attracted much
attention from the National Legislature.
| Whatever the lawmaking body may think
itself obliged constitutionally or morally or
ethieally 10 do or not 10 do ex post facto.
there is not scintiila of doubt that it
starts with the unlimited right and power
to acquire national territory. In the case
of the American Insurance Company VS..
Canter, Chief Justice Marshall, in render
l f,ry g,a aF+
The Constitution confers absolutely on the Gov
ernment OF the Union the power of making wars
and making treaties, consequently the Govern
| ment possesses the power of acquiring terri
tory either by conquest or treaty
In another case, i. e., The Mormon Church
VS. The United States (U. S. R., 1860, the
Supreme Court held:
The power of acquiring territory is derived
| from the treaty-making power and the power to
declare and carry The antecedents OF
| these powers are those Of national sovereignty,
and belong to all independent Governments
As to what Congress shall do with terri
tory after getting it, we will not stop to
quarrel with the abstract principles which
Mr.. Henderson seems to think should gov
ern, but proceed to observe that they have
not in the past and are not likely to in
tic p4tS0hb vi 1IlAi Dg way VI lli1SlId-
ton, the Louisiana treaty promised on the
part of the United States that all persons
recognized as citizens under the preceding
colonial rule of Spain and France, should
be. at their own option admitted to Amer
lean citizenship. The rule covered certain
Indians. who have never been recognized
as citizens.
In connection with the acquisition OF Cali
fornia, the same thing happened In the
case of the United States VS.. Ritchie, re-
ferring to acts of the Mexican Congress
antecedent to the change of sovereignty
the Supreme Court said:
These solemn declarations of the political now
er of the Government had the effect, necessarily
10 invest the Indians with the privileges of citi
zenship as eIectualy as had the Declaration o.
Independence OF the inhabitants OF the Unitec
| States IN I716, 10 invest all those persons wti
these privileges residing in the country tIG
time. and who adhered to the interests Of ths
colonies.
The United States, by the treaty Of
Guadaloupe Hidalgo. agreed to accord
citizenship TO all persons who were pre-
viously entitled to it under Mexican law
We do not find that Congress has redeem
ed that pledge in the instance of the Cali
fornia Indians covered by the undertaking
to this day. Nor is there any way to com
pei specific performance of such thing
II anti-expansionists want domestic pre-.
cedents to upset their theory CT consti-
tutional or other impasse with regard IL
the Philippines. let them consider how
utterly the rights and wishes of the Chero
1 l. in cf inns
them, and how little has the consent o
the governed marked our treatment o
the Indian tribes generally, from the in
ception of our Government.
Conceding, however, the principle mos
vigorously insisted upon by Mr.. Henderson
that is, that we have no right to acquiri
territory except with the intention of max
ing it, integrally, part and parcel OF th'
Union, it is plain from the authorite
which he cites-witnout book, chapter, o
verse-that the duty to accord citizenship
and erect statehood is nowhere imposed, il
advance of the capability and worthines
OF the new American imperial subject
to receive the one, and properly to suppor
and maintain the other.
The questions of national policy, ex
, pediency, and safety involved in deciding
when and under what circumstances col
onists or denizens OF territories are t,
be taken into the body polite, and allowe
! autonomy and full representation in tn
Senate and House of Representatives. ar
, questions which concern Congress alone
) Utah was kept out of the Union for hal
a century because one of its local institu
tlons was regarded as inimical TO Ameri
, can civilization. The consent OF the gov