Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1900-12-25
ScOpe Of the United states.

Elsewhere in The Star a correspondent
criticises the alleged contention of The
Star that "our insular possessions are not
an integral part of the United States. AS
this is one OF the vital questions now pend
inf before the Supreme Court The Star
had no intention of announcing and debat-
ing its own opinion in respect to 1t. Its en-
deavor was to remove certain confusing
factors and to make clearer the real nature
Of the issue to be determined by that great
tribunal: not to declare it's own view of
the matter and to submit argument in sup
port thereof.
For example. The Star sought to show
that the real question was not Does the
Constitution follow the flag to territory
belonging to the United States?' but
What limitations does the Constitution
impose upon Congress in regulating the
territory belonging to the United States?"
1t contended that on both sides the APP
plicability and Jurisdiction of the COnstitu-
ton were recognized, and that the con-
troversy was over the intention of the
Constitution and the question how its
wor~s would be correctly construed.
Without attempting to argue the question
whether our insular possessions are an
integral part of the United States, The
Star permits itself to say that in its opin-
Ion the popular impulse to give promptly
and unhesitatingiy affirmative answer
to the question is due to a failure to appre-
ciate that the words United States have
not in all connections the same scope and
comprehensiveness.
In the geographical and popular sense
our new possessions as territory belonging
to the United States are, of course, part of
the United States. But the Constitution
p,s.tiy 81.
not in the geographical and popular sense,
but to indicate exclusively the states
united. the governing entity the union
of states. in which only the sovereign
states are included.
The question in the present case is
whether the Constitution in the uniformity
of-duties clause uses the words United
States in the popular in the restricted
sense As The Star pointed out, the Cons;i-
tuition when 1t says that the day for choos-
ing pres dental electors shall be the same.
Throughout the United States" evidently
does not include non-voting territory within
the meaning Of United States" Is such
territory included within the United
States when the Constitution provides that
all duties shall be uniform throughout the
United States? Does the term United
States mean the same thing in the two
sections of the Constitution or is il of
varying dimensions. contracting to exclude
territory belonging to the United States in
one case and expanding 20 include such ter
ritOry in the other?
Both sides of this question of constilli-
ticnal construction and sound public policy
have been ably argued; and the Supreme
Court will render final decision upon it,
However the Supreme Court decides the
ton. and the constitutional rights and priv
ileges of Americans will remain intact and
un!njured. For there Is nothing hostile to
the letter or spirit of the Constitution in
the contention that not all of the territory
Of the United States is at all times and for
all purposes to be viewed as within the
United States. AS already pointed out the
ment, which declares that slavery shall not
exist within the United States or any
place subject to their jurisdiction unmis-
takably asserts under the recognized rules
OF statutory construction that there are
places subject to the Jurisdiction Of the
United States which not within the
United States. And clearly the Constitu-
ton does not sustain the speakers and
writers who View the status of those thus
subject TO the jurisdiction of the United
States but not technically within it, as one
of virtual slavery, for 1t recognizes this
status In the very words which abolish and
forever forbid slavery and involuntary ser
yitlIde