The semi-weekly messenger. [volume] (Wilmington, N.C.) 1897-1908, 1900-12-21
ARGUMENT CONTINUED In THE FED
ERAL SUPREME COURT
THE GOVERNMENTS POSITION
Set Forth and Argued by Attorney
General Griggs-He Contends That
Comes Under the Constitutfon-The
Elk Proprlo Vigore Theory Never
Heard of Until Advanced by Calhoun
Contests.

Washington, December 18.-Argu-
ments in the Porto Rico and Philippine
islands cases, involving the status OF
these countries to the United States
were resumed in the United States SUI
preme court today.
Mr.. Perkins, of counsel for appellants |
denied that the constitution in itself
extended to the territories, by declar-
ing that it was an inanimate substance, |
lacking the powers of locomotion.
Justice White asked if Mr.. Perkins
contention would lead him to the con-
clusiOn that Immediately upon the max
ing of a treaty ceding territory to the
United States every person born in that
territory after the date of cession be-
came ipso jure a citizen of the United
States.
Mr.. Perkins answered that undoubt-
eddy persons born in the territory after
the cession and subject to the jurisdic-
ton of the United States were citizens
of the United States.
18th people of the United States in
and by the constitution, MIR. Perkins
concluded, organized and erected one
and the same government, of defined
and limited powers for all people who
might hab within the dominion OF
the nation. The Whole purpose and the
DRY of the constitution is the establish
ment in a permanent form, u~nalterable,
except by the people themselves, OF
fundamental principles of government
applicable in all time and in every
place.
1.-The power to govern the people in
ahabiting the territory of the nation,
Which is delegated by the constitution to
congress-, is limited and defined by the
constitution and congress cannot trans
cend the limits imposed.
1.-The constitution limits the powers
of congress to impose taxation by the
mandate hat all duties. imposts and
excuses shall be uniform throughout the
entire domain of the United States"
Mr.. Harmon, of counsel for appellant
in the Philippine cases, argued:
by the treaty of peace between the
United States and Spain, the Philip
pines became a part OF the united
States; the government and the citizens
of the United States both enter said
islands under the authority of the con-
stitution with their respective rights
defined and marked out; the former
can exercise no power over the person
or property of a citizen of the United
States beyond what that instrument
confers nor lawfully deny n right
which it has reserved. Being a part OF
the United States, the Philippine is
lands are subject to the provisions OF
clause ! Section s, Article /, and of
clause > and 6, Section 9, Article l., OF
the constitution of the United States.
And as there is nothing differently stfp-
ulated in the treaty with respect to
IN it became instantly bound
and privileged by the laws which con-
gress had passed to raise a revenue
from duties on imports and tonnage
THE president of the United States
has no legislative power. The imposi-
ton of customs duties upon
between these stands and other parts
of the United States after the treaty
of peace and exchange of ratiications
by exective order is without awful a
thority. and the seizure of the property
of the plaintiff in error, a citizen of the
United States, under such pretended au-
thority constitute a aking of his prop
erty without due process of law"
Attorney General Griggs began hi:
for the government late this
afternoon He commended hat n Unit
ed states had the power to acquire ter
ritory; then to govern it; that admin
istrative construction, congressional
action, and judicial precedent affirm
that every port in a coded country /:
properly regarded as foreign until law:
are extended by congress to the new
possessions; that the clause of the con
%stitution of the United States declaring
duties uniform throughout the United
States is not applicable to new posses
sionS, and that the constitution does
not extend of its own force over acQuir
ed territory.
He laid down as established the two
following propositions:
1. That the tariff act of 1897 was in,
tended by to classify as for
Elm all countries not a part or belong
ing to the United States at the time o.
its passage, and the subsequent cessio1
of the Spanish islands to the United
State did not operate to admit import
from those islands free of duty, un'
der that law.
2. That the tariff act so construed
and enforced violateS no constitutional
rule of uniformity.
The attorney general declared tina
there was no doubt that IL was th'
intention of the Paris treaty not t.
make the coded islands a part of tn,
United States and also that it was in
tended not to make the inhabitants q
these islands citizens. The only thins
that could justify the declaration tina
the treat is invalid would be that i
violates the constitution of the Unitel
States.
He said that the practical construc
ton put upon the constitution by thu
executive and congressional branche;
of the government for 100 years has
with one partial exception, been uni
form in regarding acquired territory a.
neither bound nor privileged by tina
instrument Until brought within Il
operation, either by express compac
in the Treaty or by act of congress
and that acts of congress do not ap
ply to after-acquired territory until ex
tended to it by subsequent Legislative,
enactment.
THE conceded power TO acquire ter
ritorX by treaty or by conquest h.
said, includes the right to prescribed
said. includes the light to prescrib
what terms the United States will agre
TO in fixing the future status of it's in
habltants." and he cited the native In
dian tribes as cases in point.
The attorney general argued that al
the authority of the United States /
derived from he people of the state
and not from those OF the immediat
territories; hat the people of the ter
ritories cannot share or constitute tina