The Honolulu republican. [volume] (Honolulu, T.H.) 1900-1902, 1900-12-19

upon the powers Of congress under tn
constitution, intending the prohibition
Of tributes on domestic commerce
The Dred Scott decision is cited a
discrediting the theory that Congress
had right to prohibit citizen OF the
United States from taking any prop
erty which he lawfully held INTO ter
ritory Of the United States" In the
| Norris case. ia u 8. 1ss. Justice Sni-
ras is quoted to the effect that upon
\ the acquisition Of a territory by the
United States 49, by treaty with a
foreign country, - title and domin-
I ion passed to the United States for
the benefit OF the whole people. and
I in trust for the several states 10 be
ultimately created out of the terri
tory Justice Brewers opinion in the
Fong Yue Ting case. I4e U. g., TIC.
was that -the constitution has poten-
cy everywhere within the limits Of our
territory; and Justice Clifford, in the
City Of Panama case, 1o1 U. s.. 453.
said that "our constitution in its op-
erations is co-extensive with our po-
litical Jurisdiction" Chief Justice Full
Ter. in his opinion in the Springville
case. 1ss U. s., 707. swept aside the
theory that an unorganized territory
has a right to make valid a verdict
found by less than a unanimous jury,
| holding that the seventh amendment
to the constitution secured unanimi-
~ in finding a verdict as an essential
feature of trial by jury in common
Law cases, and the act Of congress
could not impart the power to change
the constitutional rule" The supreme
court seems to have drawn always
clear and sharp distinction between
political powers and the personal and
constitutional rights of the inhabitants
OF territory. the former being within
the discretion of congress, but the lat
ter guaranteed by the. principles of
constitutional liberty which restrain
all the agencies OF the government,
state and national"
On the second OF the propositions
laid down by Messrs. Aldrich and Har-
mon. the strong point is made that n
the Cross case the then secretary of
state held that the departments could
exercise no power inconsistent with
the constitution. and hence that no i'm
port duties could be levied in Califor-
MIA on articles of the growth or manu-
facture of the United States. and that
this precedent was followed in 1868
by the secretary of the treasury with
reference to furs brought from Alaska
after its cession to the United States
II the islands ceded by Spain are for
eign territory, our country would have
consuls and commercial representa-
tiyes there; but our consuls were with
drawn when Spanish sovereignty ceas-
ed in the islands. and our government
granted the exequatur of the consuis
of foreign powers accredited to Phil
ippine ports. Article Is of the treaty
of Paris provides that any Spanish yes
sci entering one of the Philippine ports
for the next ten years should be sub.
ject to the same charges as a United
States vessel mot engaged IN the
coastwise trade" II is argued that,
in making this exception. the article
contemplated that our government
might exempt as coasters its own yes
sells plying between the mainland of
the United States and the Philippines,
and to levy duties on such commerce
would be a discriminatory forbidden
by section of the first article of the
constitution.
Under the third heading of the ar
gument, the attorneys mairta.n that.
whereas. during the existence of the
war with Spain. the president might,
as commander in chief. nave proclaim
ed special customs tariff applicable
to the islands we were then holding by
capture. the exchange CT Publications
of the treaty OF peace set the Dingley
law in operation. The president here
after had no more right to suspend
the operation of the civil laws appli-
cable in the Philippines because Of
the hostilities there. than ne would
have IL an instruction occurred
among the Indians in the Indian Terri.
tory or New Mexico. requiring federal
troops to suppress it; and few would
claim that the president. under his
war powers, could direct that the Din
giey tariff should apply to products OF
these territories shipped into Other
states and territories. The argument
that We can tax. under the guise of a