Arizona republican., 1900-09-15

Candidate Bryan in a recent speech, remarkable as usual for its inaccur-
 acies, made this state 1 WRONG ment:
 AGAIN. If this government enters upon a colonial | career, it must repudiate the doctrine | that governments derive their just | powers from the consent of the gov erned. The people of Europe can be ruled in one way, the people of Canada in another, the people of Ireland in | another, while the people of India can be governed according to still different forms. but there can be no variety in a republic"
 MT Bryans statement is not only at variance with the constitution as in terpreted by the supreme court, but it | is contradicted by the history of the government from the commencement to the present hour. There has always been variety" in the measure of self government in this country. The equality enjoyed by the states has never been shared by the territories. The Indian tribes have from the begin ming been governed, with some eXcep- tions, without any self-g government whatever. while to citizens of the ter ritories has been given a measure of self-g government which, while inferior to that enjoyed by the states, is yet analogous to citizens of the self-gov- erning colonies of England. For cen tury the permanent residents of the District of Columbia, of whom there are now nearly 25O,OOO have been gov erned without any participation what ever in their municipal government
 From the time that the confederation passed the law for the government of when congress passed a law for the civil government of Porto Rico. the re- public, acting through congress, has repeatedly passed laws for the organ ization and government of territories, in which varying degrees of home rule have been given to the citizens thereof in accordance with their capacities, and in which all participation in gov ernment has been denied to the h. dians.
 So far as the power of the government to acquire territory and hold it at pleasure and govern it in it's discretion is concerned, excepting always funda- mental personal rights, there can no longer be any legal question whatever It is true that in the famous Dred Scott decision, some of the opinions of the different members of the court con- tained certain dicta which might indi- cate contrary opinion; but these dic.a were the expressions of but one or two judges. and were not essential to the decision in that case, and are contra dic1G by the later decisionfdf"tha court. The present doctrine advocated by Mir. Bryan and his adherents. that a colonial policy is impossible for this country unless we are prepared to ad- init the inhabitants of the Philippines to all the privileges which the cOnsti- tuition gives to the state, is a curious revival of a doctrine which was first suggested by MT. Calhoun for the pur- pose of carrying slavery into the ter ritories by means of the constitution The rights of congress to Iegislate for the territories was never questioned until the great advocate of slavery, in the latter part of his career, first ad- vanced the doctrine that the constitu- tion, with its recognition of slavery became immediately applicable to the territories when acquired, and congress therefore could not, without violating the constitution, prohibit slavery in the territories.
 court may seem to have given to this doctrine in the Dred Sect decision, the civil war was fought to destroy il. and with it slavery, and the later decisions of the supreme court leave no room for doubt as to the plenary powers of con gress in the territories, and the right of the American people, acting through their congress, to hold territories or colonial dependencies without confer ring the political rights of statehood. when and as long as it shall please the republic.
 Secretary of tbp Traa Sl1,.y co,,,a