Middlebury register. (Middlebury, Vt.) 1886-1937, 1900-12-21
SPIRIT OF THE PRESS
FACTS AND OPINIONS GATHERED
FROM CONTEMPORARIES.
OUR INSuLAR POLICY.

auspices OF Vne Lecture AsSoCIdJiOl VI
the University of Michigan, at Ann
Arbor, on Thursday evening.
His subject was "The Status of
Annexed Territory. and of the Rights
of Its Free and Civilized Citizens" In
part he said -
1--WE have done something new to
American history. Heretofore regions
taken over by this country have been
contiguous, even Alaska being near.
These countries were sparsely peopled or
inhabited by uncivilized peoples and
were adapted for the growth of an Amer
lean population.
1--WE have now taken lands lying in the
tropics, untitled for American settlement.
even if they were not already densely
populated. We have taken on peoples,
not lands, and not of our stock. Their
labor is cheap and threatens competition.
There is a total lack of American ideas.
We have said the Chinese will not anal.
gamate. Nor will the Philippines do so
rapidly, and the tropics are productive of
wholly new views, and their peoples are
different.
at has been held by Chief Justice Mar
shall that because the Constitution con-
fers on the government the right to make
war and treaties it also gives it power to
acquire territory, either by conquest or
treaty. SO there is no doubt that the
government has the power of conquest
and of treaty in acquiring territory.
1.-The people have delegated to the
president and congress the power of
acquiring territories by the power given
them concerning Hawaii and the Philip
pines. But this power is limited. 1t
applies only to land capable of being
erected into states of the Union.
Hawaii, the Philippines, and except
ing Cuba, our West Indian possessions,
have been taken over forever We have
made no written pledge, and we have not
made up our own minds about them, eX-
cept that they are of our domain, and
must obey us. Our hold on the Philip
pines is impeached on the ground that
Spain did not have them in her possession
when she gave them to us. This is on
the ground that man elected from a
farm cannot sell it until he has recovered
possession. But this argument must
show that Spain had been ousted from its
hold. However, had England turned
over the colonies to France in course Of
the Revolution, would the colonists have
ceased fighting, though their new
masters were ever so benign: Never.
'What is the Status of our new lands !?
Are these peoples American citizens or
American something's: 1t has been said
that the Porto Ricans are not proper cit
liens of the United States. Are they i'm
proper citizens? Already there is some
thing improper about it.
NO treaty had the right to give con-
gress the right to take the islands. The
Spanish government cannot impart pow
ers TO congress, nor has congress right
to receive any. Treaties and congress
siOnal rights are not institutional
rights, and any treaty may be abrogated
by later statute. But neither a treaty
nor statute can abrogate the Consttu-
ton. We cannot assume rights outside
of the Constitution.
However, the upholders of the Porto
Rican policy contend that the Consttu-
ton is effective only in the states, not in
territories, save as providing govern
ment over them. Opponents of the ad-
mnistration's policy hold that the Con-
stitution, in the powers given congress
and the president, must apply to all peo-
pie and all lands where these powers are
to be used. When the Constitution says
that all duties and imports shall be uni
form, it means as well that no taxes shall
be unequal. There are only three views
that can be held in the situation with any
show of consistency
"First-They get around the fact that
congress, the executive and the judiciary
shall govern through the United States,
and all people under their sovereignty
according to the Constitution by saving
that the words United States" limit the
authority to the states. But they apply
in fact to the widest limits of the terri
tory under our sovereignty.
"SecOnd-They say the words United
States" refer to an inner circle, and that
the Constitution refers only to this inner
circle. Otherwise the Constitution must
take in all
"Third-They can also say that the
Constitution, in referring only to states,
does not refer to territories, and we are
under no restraints, they would tell us,
save what our interests or benevolence
confers. These views have risen in
commercial necessity. Is it too much to
say that this view of American statehood
is shocking?
The people of the new lands are
offered this poor consolation: "a nation
truly free can be trusted to deal benevo-
lently with you" But it was not a
question of good or bad power that we
made to the Shareholders, but of power.
1.-The new subjects may expect such
benevolence as this: Revocation of the
rights of habeas corpus, writs of attain
ment, conference of title of nobility, the
establishment of a state church and CEN
sure of the press. 1t is folly to talk