Missouri Valley times. [volume] (Missouri Valley, Iowa) 1874-1931, 1900-12-20
Government
SIDE GIVEN
Attorney General Grigg' Argument
in the PhiIippines-Porto
Rican Cases,
STATUS OF NEW POS :=sslons
Constitution Does Not Extend Of Its
Own Force Over hequ red
Territory
STATUS OF NEW POSSESSIONS
RIGHT TO TAX AT CUSTOM HOUSE
Tariff on Imports From Our Own Outlying
Territory No: Contrary to the Constl-
tution-Nicw, of Jefferson ana
Othcr Statesmen Quoted.

Washington. Dec. lS.-Ar2umen.s II,
the Porto Rico ard Philippines cases
involving the status of those countries
was resumed in the supreme court to-
day. The Widespread interest in the
cases was shown BY the large attend
ance of prominent n.eaaLeYs of the bar
and by the crowd OF spectators which
fllled the public area and overlooked
into the corridor. Edward c. Perkins.
completed his argument and was FOL-
lowed by Lawrence Harmon, counsel
in the Philippines case. Attorney Gen
eral Griggs tNem presented the case on
behalf of the government.
Grlggs for the Goscr.mcnt
Mr.. Griggs' plea was based upon a
brief of 200 pages, the greater part of
which is devoted to presenting the ar
gument of the United States while The
remaining portion is in the shape of an
appendix giving the text of the peace
treaty between the United States and
Spain and also the teN, of ot!,cr treat
les supposed TO bear upon the question.
In presenting the governments side
OF the controversy the attorney gem
era first stated the two causes upon
which the proc cedillg is based. This
was followed by a general explanation
and summing up OF the government s
position, after which came the citation
of innumerable authorities. under APP
propriate headings, with pertinent
running comment upon them. The at
torney general contcndcd that the
United States has the power to ac-
quire territory; that having acquired
1t, 1T has the right To govern it, that
administrative construction congress
sional action and judicial precedent
affirm that every Tor, In "a cedcd coun-
try is properly regarded rs foreign an.
III laws are extended by congress to
the new possessions. that til. Clause of
the constitution of ths United States
declaring duties uniform throughout
the United States is not applicable to
new possessions. md that The constr
tuition does not extend ot its own force
over acquired territory
In his general coaicnt;oa IN behalf
of the United States, MI. ,;,isgs arr
guel that his cppogenrs were .ernn.
from both legal and constitutional
point OF view. Retaining to the LEGAL
aspect of the s;.vse. he .ise,trd that
the l9ingley II, apr'ic,l 10 MGR han ,isa
t'i' W. t'Ni -. .'llt ,igtt' fs.Go 'lalU ltlc
Philippines after ti.eil. .esSon To the
United states the sa.ls.. as i: ,iil be
fore, and that IN view of tile Fact that
tariff laws are in rem. ii lie is no
principle of justice. ,al.rh -, ii con-
stltutlpnal rostfi.iin Whi :. ta.hids
congress from taNns in TIM; -. tho
merchandise of outlS Ing possess nns Of
the United States when llotyh: into
the ports of the uni m.
Constitutions. On"slian.
He laid down as esta,s'lsipsa the two
following propositions: Glp That the
tariff act of 1897 WAS ,i;e,a,lcd by con-
sress to classify as foreign all eoun-
tries not part of a, Belonging; to tho
United States at thu time OF It's pas
sage. and the Subsequent c:assipn Of dc
Spanish islands 10 the United STAGES
did not operate to admit imports from
these islands free Of duty under that
law 90 that the tariff act so con-
strned and enforced violates no consti-
tutlonal RUE of unifoi.nty
Taking up the constitutional uues-
ton, the attorney general declared
that there was no doubt that IL was
the intention of the Paris treaty not to
make tie coded islands part of the
limited States and also that il was in
tended not to make the inhabitants of
those islands citizens. The only thing
that could Justify q declaration that
the treaty is invalid would be that it
Violates the constitution of the United
States.
Calling attention TO the fact that
those who attack the treaty rest their
cause upon no specific provision of the
constitution, but rather upon a princi-
pie of our government which they saw
lorplds TINS nation To hold sovereignty
over subject territory which it does not
make part of itse'f under the consti-
tuition. Mr.. Griggs said:
Limitation of Necessary Powers.
III this were true. 1t would be a
limitation upon the usual and reces-
safy powers of sovereign indepen-
dent nation of such tremendous in,-
portance as to justify us in inquiring
why it was not clearly expressed in the
fundamental law by the men who
drafted our constitution. They We're
learned in The law of nations. they
knew the Mature of colonies and PROV
inces and how they We're acquired by
treaty. and conquest and discovery.
and how they were he'd and governed
by other nations. They gave to the
nation they founded the usual untiam-
meled powers Of making war and
treaties the most frequent methods by
"HiNil ioi IGN territory Is acquired bE
the nations of the earth. If they in
tended to restrict OF limit their own
government in these respects would
they not have done SO in express
terms? They did not do 50 by any
language which can even be suggested
as capable of such import. and it i.
therefore right-na., necessary-to
conclude that they did not intend Ia
do So
He then proceeded to argue that this
was not only the intention of the fran.
ers of the constitution. but declared
that it could be positively shown that
SO far from their intention to organize
Il government which should be incapa.
BILE of acquiring foreign territory ex.
cept upon condition of making it ar
organic part Of the United States. the
early statesmen of the republic were
under the impression that no territor,
could be annexed to and become a par
of the United States without amending
the constitution.