Devils Lake inter-ocean. (Devils Lake, Ramsey Co., Dakota [N.D.]) 1884-1905, 1900-12-21

LISTEN TO CRIGGS.
Supreme Court Hears Argument
in Important Cases.
ATTORNEY GENERAL GIVES HIS VIEWS
Defends the Governments Position in
Suitx. Which Involve the States
Of Porto Rico and Philip
pine Islands.

|
suitx. Which Involve the states
of Porto Rico and Philip
pine lslands.
Washington, Dec. 19.-Arguments in
the Porto Rico-Philippines cases., in
volving the status of those countries to
the United States, were resumed in the
United States supreme court Tuesday.
The widespread interest in the cases
was shown by a large attendance of
prominent members of the bar and by
a crowd of spectators which filled the
public area and %overtlowed into the
corridor. Senator's. and representa-
tives in congress who had taken part
in the Porto Rico-Philippine legislation
dropped in as the arguments proceed
ed and gave attentive ear to the pro-
ceedings. Prior to the opening of the
court the counsel conferred and ar.
ranged a general plan of procedure.
by which Edward c. Perkins, senior
counsel in the Porto Rico case, would
conclude his argument Tuesday, being
followed by Lawrence Harmon, coun-
sci in the Philippines case. The ap-
pellants would then give way to Attor-
neyGeneralGriggs for the presentation
of the case in behalf of the govern
ment. This, it was expected, would
continue until Wednesday,, when
Charles H. Aldrich, former solicitor
| general. and senior counsel in the
Philippines case, will close in behalf
of the appellants.
Argument by Mr.. GriRxs.
Mr.. Grlggs' plea was based upon a brief
of 200 pages. the greater part of which is
devoted to presenting the argument 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
Staes and Spain. and also the text of other
treaties supposed to bear upon the question.
In presenting the governments side OF
the controversy the attorney general first
stated the two casesi upon which the pro-
ceeding Is based. This was followed by q
general explanation and summing up of
the governments position. after which
came the citation of innumerable authori-
ties. under appropriate headings, with per-
tinent running comment upon them. The
attorney general commended that the United
States has the power to acquire territory;
that, having acquired it, 1t has the right to
govern it.; that administrative construc-
ton, congressional action and judicial pre-
cedent affirm that every port in a ceded
country Is properly regarded as foreign UNI
til laws are extended by congress to the
new possessions; that the clause Of the
constitution of the United States declaring
duties uniform throughout the United
States is not applicable to new possessions.
and tina the constitution does not extend
of its own force over acquired territory.
Wrong from Two Points Of View.
In his general contention on behalf of the
United States, Mr.. Griggs argued that his
opponents were wrong from both a legal
and a constitutional point Of view. Refer
| ring to the legal aspect of the case, he as
serted that the Dingley act applied to mer-
chandise imported from Porto Rico and the
Philippines after their cessiOn to the
United States the same as 1t did before, and
that in view of the fact that tariff laws are
in rem there is no principle of justice, much
less of constitutional restriction, which
forbids congress from taxing in this way
the merchandise Of outlying possessions of
the United States when brought into the
ports Of the union.
Two Established Propositions.
He laid down as established the two fol-
lowing propositions:
/. That the tariff act of 1897 was intended
by congress to classify as foreign all coun-
tries not a part of or belonging to the
United States at the time of its passage,
and the subsequent cessiOn Of the Spanish
islands to the United States did not oper-
ate to admit imports from those islands
free of duty, under that law. 2. That the
tariff act so construed and enforced violates
no constitutional rule of uniformity.
Right to Acquire and Govern.
Mr.. Griggs then entered upon the presen-
tation of his subject in detail. He contend.
ed that the right of the United States to ac-
Quire territory had been asserted In the
declaration Of independence, and said that
such acquisition could be made either by
conquest. by treaty, by annexation or by
discovery. He quoted a number of supreme
court decisions in support Of this conten-
ton. A great deal Of attention was given
to the right to govern territory when once
acquired, and innumerable authorities were
adduced in support Of this position. among
others the decision of the supreme court In
the Mormon church case, IN which the court
said that ut would be absurd to hold that
the United States has power to acquire ter
ritory and no power to govern it when &C
CURED"
He asserted that 1.-The treaty-making pow
er Of the government has exercised the
right to deal with the status Of the inhabit-
ants of ceded territory In every treaty OF
~cession from 1903 to 1885," The status fixed,
he said. has not been uniform. but exceed
ingly varying. He then proceeded to argue
that this practice Is entirely at variance
with the doctrine that the constitution
follows the nag ana tHdt WHen territory ID
ceded to the United States the inhabitants
become Immediately proprio vigore citizens
of the United States. IF that doctrine be
true he said. "every treaty that has
brought us new lands and new inhabitants
has violated in this respect the principles
of the constitution. 1t convicts of error
and usurpation Thomas Jefferson. James
Madison, James Monroe. James K. Polk,
Franklin Pierce. Andrew Johnson, their
cabinets and the senates that ratified their
treaties"
As to "Uniform Duties" Cha use.
Mr.. Griggs went at length into the claim
that the constitutional clause which pro-
vides that duties, imposts and excuses
shall be uniform throughout the United
States prohibits imposition Of duties In
the cases before the court.
THAT clause he said. does not apply
to nor govern these cases. because the term
United States as there used. mear/ only
the territory comprised within the severa
states of the union, and was intended only
for their benefit and protection. and not
for the benefit or protection of outside ter
ritory belonging to the nation; in the lat
ter sense duties on imports from these is.
lands were Uniform throughout the United
States, because they are uniformity i'm.
posed at every port in the United States. sc
fbof fhcrc &c NO rrefereroG oiIyer m rhl