The Hawaiian gazette., 1900-10-12
CONSTITUTION AND FLAG. lEgsss

CONSTITUTION AND FLAG. IKE :.
Does the Constitution necessarily fol-
low the flag into annexed territory?
There is long line Of decisions for
and against. mainly political in their
character; political because. in the old
slavery and Civil War days, the Demo-
Gratis took the view that the Constitu-
ton does so follow the fagV and the
wings and Republicans the position
that 1t does not, courts usua1ly dlvld-
ing on the subject accordIpErto their
politics. Chief Justice TsTey of fugi-
tive slave law fame held stoutiy to the
Affirmative; ,gsepubIican judges as a
rule have taken the negative view and
In this. since war times, have found
support in the obvious recognition Civ
en- by the Thirteenth, Amendment to a
colonial status for annexed lands. This
Amendment says: Neither slavery
nor involuntary servitude, except as
punishment for crime, whereof the par
~ shall have been duly convicted, shall
exist within the United States or any
place subject to their Jurisdiction"
There csn, then, be United States and
a jurisdictional district, not necessarily
subject to the full authority of the or
ganic law. existing under the nag-a
place where the fact OF American SOW
ereienty Is recognized but where the
people cannot claim citizenship until
Congress shall have specially be-
slowed 1t.
Here are some Supreme Court dec-
slons and citations which will De read
with interest:
Territories are not organized under the
Constitution. but are creatures exclusive
ly of the legislative department and sub
tect to its supervision and CONTROLS
How. 242.
Congress has full and complete legis-
lative authority over the people of the
Territories and the departments of the
Territorial Government."-101 u. S. 132
Until Congress enacts law providing
FOR Territorial form of government In
Territory, the President under his execu-
tive authority over all territory of the
United States is bound to maintain such
civil or, military rule and authority as he |
may think poper."--20 Wall 3s4; 16 How. |
100.
Territories annexed did not ipso facto |
derive rights from the Constitution. It's |
only rights are thost stipulated in the |
treaty, or granted by It's new masters"
Il Pet. 52.
Doubtless Congress- In leg!slating for
he Territories, would be subject to those |
limitations in favor of per-
'onal rights which are formulated In the
and its amendments; but
hese limitations would exist rather by in
erence and the general spirit of the Con-
from which Congress derives
III its powers, than by any express and
iirect application of it's powers."-Sec. 10
J. S. 3i9.
1.-THE civil government Of California had
IS origin in the lawful exercise of bel
igerent right over a conquered Territory.
t did not cease as a matter of course, or
10 a necessary consequence of the resto-
alton of peace. The President might
AVE dissolved 1t by withdrawing the ar
ny and navy officers who administered 1t,
mt he did not do so. Congress could have
nut an end to 1t, but that was not done.
The right inference from the inaction of
10Th is that 1t was meant to be contln-
led until 1t had been legislatively chang
d."-16 How. 1893.
1.-THE President and Congress are vested
With all the responsibility and powers of
he Government for the determination OF
questions as to the maintenance and eX-
ension of our national domain. 1t Is not
he province of the courts to participate
n the discussion decision of these ques-
Ions, for they are of a political nature
ind not judicial. Congress and the Presi-
lent having assumed jurisdiction and SOW
y eighty all the people and the courts OF
he country are bound by such govern
mental acts."-50 Fed. Rep. 40.
''That the United States may hold Ter
tories, such as Alaska, without stipula-
ion that they must become States. and
he inhabitants citizens. has frequently II
'een decided Ivy the Supreme Court'-16
Wall 49, 1877 u. S. 212.
If the United States has the right to
Icquire territory by conquest or treaty.
md such territory is neither organized,
reated nor governed under the Con-
titutIon where is the authority for the
tatement that the Constitution fol-
1ws the hag?"
Where is the authority for denounc-
1g the doctrine that the executive may
lawful authority beyond where
he constitution is? !
-@---- :