The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1900-04-16


sututlon, that Uniformity in the IMPOSE
zion OF InpOstS, duties and excuses should
De observed in the one than in the other.
@ @ 9
In the case Of Cross et al. VS.. Har-
rison, Is Howard, page 1874, a similar
decision. and one bearing upon the
Porto Rican affair was rendered. The
circumstances of the case which must
be known to appreciate the decision,
We're as follows:
In lS41 California was occupied by
the troops OF this republic. A military
government YVES established and i'm
port duties were collected. On Feb. 3,
1913, the treaty OF peace between Mex
leo and the United States was signed,
and California passed to the United
States by cessicn. There was no col
lection district established by act of
congress until March 3, 1919. when San
francisco was made a port, and the
collector appointed under this law did
not actually enter on the duties Of his
office until Nov. 1S, 1S49. From August,
lS4S, the duties collected were those
provided by the general revenue laws
Of the United States, and this action
was against Harrison, the collector, to
recover them, on the ground that there
was no legal authority for so doing.
The authority, in fact, was the direc-
ton Of the executive department. which
ordered the collection of duties. and the
specific instruction by the secretary of
state was as follows:
This government de facto will OF
course. exercise no power inconsistent
with the provisions of the constitution of
the United States which is the supreme
law of the land. For this reason no i'm
port duties can be levied in California on
articles the growth, produce or manufac-
ture OF the United States, as no such
duties can be imposed i'll any other part
of our Union on the productions of Cali
fOrnla. Nor can new duties be charged in
Callfornla upon such foreign productions
ports OF entry, for the obvious reason
that California is within the territory of
the United States.
Upon appeal TO the courts this exer-
else Of the taxing power was upheld,
and the opinion of the highest court
in the land was as follows:
The plaintiffs had no right of trade
with California with foreign goods, eX-
NtBtlilS 4iOll TIE PERMISSION given ON the
United States under the civil government
and war tariff which had been established
there. And when the country was coded
as conquest, by treaty of peace, no
larger liberty to trade resulted By the
ratification of the treaty California be-
came a part of the United States. And
as there is nothing differently stipulated
in the treaty with respect TO commerce. it
became instantly bound and privileged by
the laws which congress had passed to
raise revenue from duties on imports
and tonnage.
California was in the same condition
as Porto Rico exactly, ard the supreme
court held that the ratification Of the
treaty effected the extension of the
constitution over the territory included
therein. These decisions make it clear
that the supreme court has never held
any other opinion than that the consti-
tuition extends over all parts of the
territory of the United States, or that
congress is governed by the constitu-
ton in legislating for every part of the
United States, which is the same thing.
These are not the only cases where
such views have been upheld. When
ever a case involving the point has
been up the court has been emphatic in
it's reaffirmatior of this principle. The
constitution expressly declares that the
constitution and laws of the United
States which are made in pursuance
thereof, shall be the supreme law Of
the land The land of which the gov
eminent has Jurisdiction and over
which the flag is permitted to remain
after peace is declared is 1.-The land
to which reference is made.
In the case OF Murphy VS.. Ramsey,
ia U. S. Rep. A. it was said:
The people of the United States, as SOW
| ereign owners of the national territories,
have supreme power over them and their
| inhabitants. In the exercise of this SOW
| ereign dominion they are represented by
the government of the United States, tO
whom all the powers of government over
! that subject have been delegated, subject
! only. to such restrictions as are expressed
! in the constitution, or are neces sarily i'm
| piled in its terms.
g @ g
/ It is a new doctrine that congress
! possesses powers not granted by the
constitution, or that the president may
govern millions Of peoples outside of
the constitution"
/ This has always been called a consti-
/ tutional republic. There is danger in
! ignoring or abrogating the fundamental
law of the republic. II is the bulwark
Of the peoples liberties. Men of all
parties have said so time and again
| Let the bulwark be broken down, and
how long will their liberties be able to
withstand the persistent assaults Of or
! ganized greed and imperial wealth?
The danger to The republic is greater
today than it was in 1912, when Eng
land sent her fleets and armies across
the sea to destroy it. The citizen who
believes in constitutional government
is in duty bound to resent this depar-
ture from correct principles and to re-
buke the aggregation Of plutocrats anC
place hunters who are so busily copy
ing the imperial ways of Europe.
1 -%-