The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1900-10-30
THE FLAG AND
THE CONSTITUTION
The New York Suns Able Pre-.
sentiment Of the
Law.

Hiu's Elmira performance has not de-
TERED him, it appears, from further AZ
ltempts In the same line. He therefore
requires a little further attention as
Constitutional lawyer.
In his Brooklyn speech on Monday
evening Mr.. Hill said:
cit is a monstrous doctrine that the
Constitution does rot extend TO the
Territories. 1t has only now been in
voked to justify the proposed estau
Ilishment OF colonial governments when
are confessedly to be and remain out
side of the Constitution"
1t was invoked by Democrat with
a greater and stralghter Intellect than
Mr. HITS when Thomas Jefferson SAID
IF the Louisiana purchase almost one
hundred years ago:
The territory was purchased by the
United States in their confederate Ca
pacity, and may be disposed Of by Item
at their pleasure. 1t Is in the nature
regulated without any reference 70 the
Constitution"
Forced to confess that It was the
bred Scott case which he cited nrony-
mously at Elmira as affording con-
elusive decision that the United
States has no power to ho'd and gov
ern the Philippines or Porto Rico tx
lcept under all the limitations and re-
strictions imposed by the. Constitution.
Mr.. Hill had the, impudence, to plead
that 1.-The bred Scott case has never
been reversed. and IT'S btneing aut:;or-
lily has never since been Questioned
by the. Supreme Court Of the United
States" - -,s.s- Jr..a
This is characteristic of Mr., Hill. AS
we have shown clearly, and as every
lawyer knows, the only point In judg-
ment in the bred Scott case was the
exclusive right of Missouri To de-
termine and regulate the status OF per-
sons. within her territory. That has
not yet been reversed, except by the
events of the civil war anjTthe Consti-
Itutional Amendments resulting there
from. Chief Justice Taney's dictuIn.
which MIR. Hill cited as Il pretended
decision did not need to be reversed,
for 1T never possessed any bindil's au-
thority
| This trick in Mr. Hills statement is
crude and cheap. But either in igno-
rance or in reckless audaclty he goes
further and denies that The doctrine
invented by Calhoun and annou.lcrd
obiter from the bench by fancy has
ever been controverted in any decision
of the Supreme Court OK the United
States. He said at BROOKLYN:
with due Difference to those who
differ with me on any subject, .1eny
that there Is any such decision
The reports of the opinions uf Inc
4 Supreme Court since its organization
contain many such decisions; white the
dictum IN the bred Scott case stands
practically alone.
In the case of GIBSON against Cho-
teau the Supreme Court said:
with respect to the public domain
he Constitution vests in Congress the
over of disposition and Of making al
ineedful rules and regulations. That
power Is subject to no limitations
In deciding the case of the American
insurance Company against Canter
lChief Justice Marshall held that the
CONSTITUTION does not extend of it's own
unaided force over every territory &C.
lQuired by the United States. In arSu-
ing that case Daniel Webster had said:
DO the laws of the United States
reach Florida? Not unless by particu-
lar provision Does the law es-
tablishing the court at Key West come
within the restrictions of Che Corstitu-
ton of the United States?"
. And Marshall answered the question
in the opinion which he delivered
These courts, then, are not Coisti-
tutional courts, in which the judicial
power conferred by the Constitution
on the general Government can be de
posted. They are incapable of rocei"-
ing 1t. They are legislative coIrts
created in virtue OF the peneral right
OF sovereignty which exists in the Gov.
eminent, or in virtue of that CLAUSE
which enables Congress To maze Al
needful rules and regulations respect
ing the territory belonging to the Unit
ed States. The jurisdiction with which
they are invested Is not part nt that
judicial power which is defined in the
Third Article of the Constitution, but
Is conferred by Congress in the .x..cu-
ton of those general powers WIFI
that body possesses over the territories
of the United States.
In the case of the Mormon Church
against the United States, a case refer.
red to by Mr.. Hill only TO dist ,It Its
true significance, the Supreme Cour-
said:
Doubtless Congress in legislatiny 70,
the Territories would be subject :.
those fundamental limitations in fayo,
OF personal rights -rhich are formula I.
ed in the Constitution and its amend.
, ments; but those limitations wouIt
exist rather by inference and thu. ger
eral spirit of the Constitution. from
which Congress derives ali it's l:ow..rs
than by any express and Girect app.i
, cation of it's provisions"
! These and many similar opinions O.
r the supreme Court of he Tinted
: states will not interest the Hon. Davif
5 bennett Hill at the present time H,
is tco busy adding the embers If hi:
professional reputation to the aisle; =
i ms political fame.-New York Sun
October f.