The Honolulu republican. [volume] (Honolulu, T.H.) 1900-1902, 1900-10-30

IL Is a striking fact that CHEZ jus
i tice Marshall in memorable opinoT
finds the sole and entire defense Of on,
system of territorial government in tbs
doctrine OF constitutional law announces
by Chief Justice fancy. namely. thai
territory held and governed by congress
i held and governed under she Con<ti
tuition fsy. gorosS;y 80 order t. be admit
|. ted hIto tire lssioa es States. The de
cision 10 which We refer is the one de-
livered by the chief justice IN the case
of Langhboroush vs. Blake % Wheaton
II 311). In tina, case it was confended
that the citizens OF the District OF Co
luubia, not beins represented in con
/ gress, could not b subjected TO direct
/ taxation. which the Const.iatiG pro-
vides shall be apportioned like represent
/, atiyes among che several states accorsi-
/ ing TO their respective numbers Ii was
! claimed that if the United States should
IMPOSE direct taxes upon citizens resid-
Il ing oat OF the states % fhe union and
! having no repreSerIatio in the govern
| ment. sach was clearly = case OF tax
! alton without representation whica
the coloaies made TIE chief cause of re-
| volt against Great Britain. LIE Ques-
'iou here WAS anuistakably presented to
the cc-lrI-w hesser the Constitution con
templated 6r permitted a colonial sy.teas
fCbief Justice S<Iarshall having held that
direct taxation could he applied to the
District of Columbia and to the terri
tories as we'll found the reply TO the
above question IN the fact that state
hood WINS the end necessarily intended
and marked out by the Constitution for
the territories Of the United States. He
declared:
The difference between requiring a
continent with An unhenA population
to submit TO te taxed by government
having no common inte.est with 1t.
separated from II by vast oRan and
associated with IT By no common fesl-
lngs, and permitting the representatives
of tho American people. 04der tbs re
striGtions Of oxr Cons tatsoss 80 tar
paa of the society. ohich "a ia state OF
infHncv. odraaein0 TO ssanhaod looking
foruard to complete csndiay as soon as
that state of wasAood shall be sftuSsed,
as IS the case lcith the territories, is too
obvious not to present itself to the
minds Of all (P. 324.)
This constitutional limitation of ulti
mate statehood for the territories of the
United States is defined with equal force
in other decisions of the supreme court.
During the interim between the de-
cision In LoughbSrough Va. Blake AMI
that Of Scott VI. Sanford the supreme
court had distinctly announced the same
doctrine in the important and instruct
i've case OF Pollard's Eesse vs.. Hsgan
(3 Howard 221-23). and that decision
was in that particular fully affirmed in
1893 in the case of Shively vs.. Bowlby
(152 Z. S. p. 49,, In which the court
assorted:
The territories acquired by congress
whether by deed or cession from the
original states, or by treaty with for
eign country, are held Nth tbs object.
as soon as their eopaIation and cot
ditioa justify. of being ashnnted into
the union as states upon an eogal foot
ing with the original states IN all re
spects; and the title and dominion of
the tidewaters and the lands under them
are held by the United States for the
benefit of the whole people, and. as tbs
court has often said, in tHust for the
future states.
In the same case the court, in stunning
up its conclusions, adds;
Upon the acquisition Of territdGy
by the United States. whether by ces-
Sion from one of the ststes or By tresty
with a foreign country. or by discovery
and settlement. the same title and do
minon passed to the United States for
the benefit of the whole people and IN
trust for the several states to bs aIti-
mately created out of the territory
In Murphy W.. Ramsey Ola Z. s,
AZ to the same eject il was said:
The power Of congress over the ter
ritor;es is limited by the obvials pur-
those purposes are satisfied lS measures
which prepare the people Of the tepr-
tories to become ssates n tee sssc<.
The same Doctrine IS distinctly laid
down BY Mr.. Justice rield liz Weber vs.
Harbor Commissioners Us Wallace. 65l
and in Brown W.. Grant ll1s {. s.
2O1). and it Il noteworthy that these
recent decisions contain references TO the
bred Scott decision as authority for the
propositions they announce.
The views Of the late Mr. Justice
Cooler upon this subject fully coincide
With these already ser f0zah- In bis
CONSTITUTIONS Lew" up. 1910, he
says:
1T could never have been undsesto,i
that any territory which b purchase.
eession or conquest should at aIS szne
come under the contra Of the United
States should permanently ts held in a
territorial condition. and sbe new states
which have been formed Of territories
acquired BIZ treaty mrss be supposed to
have been received into the union in
strict compliance with the Contitu-
ton"
He cites Scott ". Sanford. and con-
sinues:
And when territory Is acquired she
right OF sovereign STATES to be formed
thereffom and 10 receive them into the