Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1900-04-14

of attainder and ex post facto laws are
prohibited; in Paragraph 5 titles of nos
bil!ty are prohibited; in the fourteenth
amendment slavery is prohibited, and
as qualified prohibitions we find Article
4, Section 9, Para graph ., forbids the
suspending OF the writ of habeas cor-s
.pus, except in cases of revolution, etc.;.
Paragraph 4 forbids direct tax unless
laid in proportion to population. If then
the same instrument which confers
upon congress the power to legisiato
for territory belonging to the United
State expressly prohibits it from
passing laws which will do
all these things, how unwarranted and
even dishonest must appear the
Leaders conclusion that "if the princi-
pie of the bill be sound, congress has
power, If it SO chooses, to deny inhabi-
8tants of Porto Rico not only equity of
trade, but all the civil rights enumer.
8ated in the constitution. Congress can
pass ex post facto laws With respect To
Porto Rico: in can impose cruel and
unusual punishments. it can take prop-
erty without due process of law and so
or down the list Of constitutional lin-
iitations. The constitutions says con-
gress shall not do these things. yet the
Leader would have its readers believe
that such dangers exist in the princi-
pies of the Porto Riean bill.
The Leader again proclaims with
much patriotic fesvor The American
republic was founded on the theory
that. with respect TO civil rights. every
citizen was the equal Of every other
scitizen before the law and then asks:
Let any man harmonize this theory of
government With the doctrine pro-
claimed with respect TO Porto Rico.
that The Porto Ricans have no civil
rights which congress is legally bound.
10 rs pect, and that if it respects such
rights it is "a matter Of grace, not COM
pulsion.
Can anything be found in the Porto
Rican bill or iii he doctrine that Port.'
Rico is but a colony territory belong
ing 10 the United States that produces
any, inequality in the rights Of Porto
Rican citizens before the law Is there
anything in such legal relation be-
tweeE the federal government and its
territory that implies tyranny? Where
then is the justice in the Leaders
query Wherein does ii differ in prin-
#ciple from the policy of Athens toward
her colonies or of Rome toward her
provinces. or of Spain toward her pos
sessions. or of Russia toward her de-
pendencies2' Is there any attempt in
the Porto Rican bill To exploit the
island for the benefit of this country. to
enslave its people or to foist upon it
Idictators whose rule shall be arbitrary,
unjust ard for personal aggrandize-
mento
To show the bitterness Of the Lead
er's anti-position and disrespect for the
of our government we havs
but to quote its intended slur: -
court which has given us the legal ten.
der and the income tax decisions, thu:
l5setting al naugh the recognized law 81
a century. may be able 10 find wa,
10 hold the Porto Rican hill constitu-
tionai Our courts set at naugtt ths
recognized law of a century our gov
Iernment is trying to tyrannize over It's
COLONIES as Rome did, and citizens 9,
Its island dependencies are denied al
| civil rights just because republican
I3congress chose to consider Porto Rics
as belonging TO the United States rath
er than an integial part of j, or. more
correctly speaking. because the con.
gress was q republican congress /;
there any fairness or any sense to suci
5reasoningo