New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1899-01-11

'dltion OF colonies and he governed accord
"ingly." Otherwise he held. "the President and
Senate may admit Mt will any foreign nation
..into this copartnership without the consent OF
"the States" Timothy Pickering and Gouver-
ncur Morris and the other Federallst leaders
tool, exactly the same view.
II is nor with these men that Senator Hoar
takes his stand. but rather with the Jeffersonan
disciples Of strict construction. when he says:
The powers OF the United states must be az.
frmativcly delegated or they do not exist. The
powers claimed by the States must be expressly
prohibited they do exist. And there are other
powers not delegated to the United States and
prohibited to the States which are reserved to
the people: that u.s. there are powers which the
people OF the United states mean snali NOT De
exercised by anybody on the face OF the earth,
so far as their Jurisdiction and authority extend,
unless they shall hereaft.. change their mind
and grant them.
That Is strict construction pure and simple.
That is the theory Of Jefferson. he could find
no hint about new territory In the Constitution.
lie believed the annexation Of Louisiana bene-
fetal. but rs the power OF annexation had not
been affirmatlvely delegated he held that 1t dld
not exist In the National Government, but was
reserved TO the people. and he proposed TO ask
the people 10 give him, after the fact the au-
thority which he had already exercised In an
emergency The old Republican party took Of
fee In 1901 pledged TO just the doctrine which
Senator Hoar states and found II utterly I'M
workable, and had Itself first TO assume, as nee
essary attributes OF sovereignty powers not del
cgated. and then give mp all attempts TO pre-
serve consistency by constitutional amendments
and accept the doctrine as set forth In the Lou
isiana debate that "the treaty making powers or
this country are competent to the full and free
exercise Of their best judgment In making
treaties without limitation Of power. The Nir-
GINA theory OF affirmative powers long ago ex-
ploded, and II there was anything LETT or II
after the Louisiana Purchase. after the acquisl-
ton Of Texas-by what Gallatin denounced as
an unconstitutional. by what was certainly an
extra constitutional method. which formed the
precedent OF Hawaii-and after the Treaty OF
Guadalupe Hldalgo It disappeared completely
In the Civil War, when the United States proved
Itself to be Nation with all the powers or SOW
ereignty n Nation with Constitution, but not
merely the creature of a Constitution. n living
thing not an automaton.
Certainly rs Senator Hoar says. we must
govern Territories according to the principles OF
the Constitution That IL n settled point But
to govern under It's principles does not necessa-
rlly mean Statehood or preparation for State
hood The Supreme Court lays down the rule
thus: THE personal and civil rights of the in
"habitans Of the Territories are secured to
them. as to other citizens. by the principles OF
constitutional liberty which restrain all the
agencies Of government State and National;
their political rights are franchises which they
hold as privileges In the legislative discretion
"of the Congress Of the United States" Nobody
proposes to deny to the people of our new pos
sessions their civil and personal rights. The
very nature Of the American Government makes
fl give those to all people under Its authority.
The Filipino will have them the same as the
Alaskan and the United States has the same
constitutional power to limit the political rights
Of the one AS OF the other. Senator Hoars view
that the Philippine annexation turns the United
States into a despotsm ignores this distinction
between the invioable nature Of civil rights and
the accidental nature Of political rights In Terri
tories under the Constitution.
Senator uoar says sovereignty can only be ex-
ercised to accomplish the purposes Of the Con-
stitution But why Is not the extension OF our
domain to the Philippines as much in accord
with that purpose as It's extension to California?
How can he say that II will not as much promote
the general welfare and make n more perfect
union and advance domestic happiness? He be-
lieyes It will not and therefore believes 1t I'M
constitutional But such beliefs are matters OF
opinion and the person who holds that expan-
sion is likely to add TO the general happiness and
strengthen the Nation IS equally entitled 10 re-
gard expansion as constitutional under the rule
invoked by Senator Hoar for Judging the con-
stitutionality Of an act contemplated as an exer-
else of implied powers