The Honolulu republican. [volume] (Honolulu, T.H.) 1900-1902, 1900-12-27


erty- Why seek 60 nesdlessfv fimi
anA restrain The naftcoaf functious
why not rather. vftA the sane l2rI<
ness q vsev and purpose that cha-a<
/ terfDe6 eueA stnfe8Dea - Ie4erDel
and ..arshAli- SEX b~ liberal iuterpre
tAtf0a b give bruoA and ample scup,
70 IL sVfrie II national developnenf
looklng forward. q NarshaIl expresse(
4. - the ages TO come when newer
/ grander and more potential oppcrsu
mites for national growth and fnflu
ence should hare come 10 u than oul
fathers ever dreamed of.
Quotes Thirteenth Amendment.
Mr.. Grixgs laid IL down n q fact
that administrative. constructive con
gressionsl and judicial precedent III
amrm that under our revenue laws
every port in ceded country is 70 be
regarded as q foreign one until such
laws are expressly extended By Con
gress to the new possessions" and he
gave very complete citations OF pro
ceedings under these heads In sup
port of his contention
In this connection he quoted the
clause in the thirteenth amendment.
saving that slavery shall not exist in
the United States '.or any place sub
feet 10 their jurisdiction and COM
menting upon il. SAID:
.-.e clear significance Of this Ian
guage is that there may be territory
pertaining TO and under the iurisdic-
ton of the United States which is not
a part of the United States. and to
which the constitution of the United
States does not apply unless it be ex-
pressly made TO apply thereto, as in
the case of slavery
Mr.. Griggs then went at length into
the claim that the constitutional clause
which provides that duties. imposts
and excuses shall be uniform through
out the United States" prohibits i'm
position OF duties in the cases before
the court.
That clause" he said. does not ap-
ply 10 nor govern these cases, be-
cause the term United States as there
used means only the territory COM
prise6 within the several states OF the
union and was intended only for their
benefit and protection and not for he
benefit and protection of outside ter
ritory belonging to the nation; In the
latter sense duties on imports from
these islands were uniform through
out the United States, because they
are uniformly imposed at every port
in the United States, so that there is
no preference given to the ports OF
one state over those of another. nor
is there any inequality between the
several states created-'
Argues for State Distinction.
The attorney general argues for a
sharp delineation between the rights
of the people of the states and those
of our immediate territories. saying
that all the authority of the United
States is derived from the people Of
the states and not from those Of the
territories; that the people of the ter
ritories canot share or contribute to
that authority. as they are deprived OF
the right to elect officials. etc.
The purpose of the constitutional
provision for uniformity was that IT
insuring equally fair treatment to all
the states by Congress. and it was
known to be one Of the guarantees
held out to the states to accept the
constitution. 1t was not personal
but local guaranty. operating not s
privilege to individuals but to states
considered as organized constituents
of the union. Hence, he argued, rea-
sons for applying it to territories are
wanting.
The last feature of the argument
was a contention that the constitution
does not extend of its own force over
acquired territory, and in this con-
nection the attorney general sought to
refute the doctrine sas laid down by
Chief Justice fancy in the bred Scott
case, that the United States could not
acquire territory for any other pur-
pose than to convert it into states OF
the union. THE doctrine of ex pro-
prio vigore extension of the constitu-
ton was never heard Of" he said.
until it was invented and advocated
by Calhoun as means OF fastening
slavery upon California and New Mex
leo beyond the power OF Congress to
disturb or abolish it. 1t was in con-
fiict with all previous views OF states
men of all parties and opposed to the
compact in the ordinance of 1887, as
well as to the act of Congress known
as the Missouri Compromise.
The doctrine announced in the bred
Scott decision was, said Mr.. Griggs,
not original with Chief Justice fancy,
but was originated by John c. Calhoun
and pronounced by MIN during he dis
cussion of the Wilmot proviso of 1S47.
This doctrine had been tacitly ,g-
nored and repudiated in later opinions
and in congressional action. to say
nothing of the effect upon it Of the
result of the civil war. Indeed. said
the attorney general. in the language
Of Professor Pomeroy. the bred Scott
decision had become a byword and
kissing.
In conclusion. Mr. Griggs submitted
that the judgments in the lower courts
in both cases violate no constitutional
or other right. and therefore should
be affirmed.
49, -. Nh~ou,c ne