St. Johnsbury Caledonian. [volume] (St. Johnsbury, Vt.) 1867-1919, 1900-01-31

|
located outside the States, and that was
decided in 1920, Chief Justice Marshall de-
lVerlng the opinion. The question for de-
clsloh was whether an act of Congress in
cludlng the District of Columbia in an ap-
appCruonment of a direcE tax, according
10 the census of the States and District,
was constitutional. 1t was held eonsTitu-
tional 1t could not be otherwise held if
the District was then under the constitu-
tlon The reasoning of Chief Justice
Marshall as | understand it, is that it
was immaterial whether the District was
under the provisions of the constitution
In substance he reasons that if in levying
direct tax Congress should omit State
or not apportion the tax among the States
according to the census, as prescribed in
Inc constitution, the tax would be unlaw-
fnlly levied and void; that the same eff
fect would not result if Territory was
omitted, because the constitution does not
require direct taxes in the Territories to
be so apporttoned; that in the Territories
congress exercises plenary power in levy
ing direct taxes, and in the exercise of
thls power could apportion the tax as re-
CURED by the constitution among the
States think the decision and reason
ing OIL the eminent chief justice, properly
understood, does not support the doctrine,
but the reverse.
CITIZENSHIP.
In considering citizenship | shall not dis
cllss the SlaughteThouse cases and some
others which are upheld, because the acts
of the States complained of as impinging
upon the rights of citizens secured by the
constitution were held to be valid within
the police power of the State, although
some expressions in the opinions may give
the careless reader the impression that
the constitution extends over the District
Of Columbia and the Territories, unaided
by act of Congress or by treaty, for, if
any such expressions can fairly be held
to have such force, they were clearly out
side the points considered and decided,
and are no more than dicta. In United
States VS.. Wang Kim Ark Q69 U. S., 649)
1t is held that the defendant in error, born
OF Chinese parents in California while his
parents We're residing there, but were not
and could not, under the laws of the Uni
ted States be naturalized, became citi-
zen of the United States under the 14th
amendment. The case was decided by a
divided court after very full consideration.
The majority of the judges hold that the
comnon-law doctrine in regard to birth in
country, from foreign parents residing
there, entities the child to the protection
of the country, and for that reason he
owes to such country allegiance, and be-
comes a citizen under the terms of the
amendment.
There is force in the dissenting views of
Chief Justice Fuller and Mr.. Justice Har-
Ian, holding that the birth must be from
parents who, by the laws Of the country,
could have become citizens by naturalza-
ton to give the child such a status. IL
the discussion in the opinion representing
the views of the court, some expressions
are used which carry the impression that
such a birth in the Territories, or where
ever the United States has jurisdiction,
renders the child a citizen. But no such
question was before the court, nor does
the opinion profess to consider such a
question. The question involved may be
correctly decided, and yet does not touch
the doctrine that the constitution extends
to the District of Columbia and Territories
of its own unaided vigor These are the
strongest representative cases claimed to
indicate that the constitution has such
unaided power.
THE CONSTITUTION.
Opposed TO its having such power is the
nature and language of the constitution
and many decisions of the Supreme Court.
The constitution is that of a representa-
muated and adopted by representatives
selected by and from the people of the
different States to form a common govern
ment for themselves under the name of
the United States. This name Is used
throughout the instrument to mean the
States united, or their combined power.
The constitution commences with
I'VE, the people of the United States, in
order to form more perfect union,
and secure the blessings of liberty to our
selves and our posterity do ordain and es-
tabish this constitution for the United
States of America"
The United States as here used evident
ly is a synonym for the union of the
States which should adopt it. The people
of the States announced in advanced that,
through their representatives, they form
the Constitution, among other things to
secure the blessings of liberty to them
selves and their posterity, and announced
no other purpose. 1t is almost invariably
he'd that the acts and laws enacted by
the legal representatives of any munich
pality bind only the inhabitants of that
municipality. Such acts and laws have,
and are intended to have no extra-lerri-
torial effect or jurisdiction. If any extra
territorial jurisdiction for such laws is in
the contrary will be presumed. The sever
al articles of the Constitution and the first
ten amendments adopted nearly contem-
porarily, establish the three departments
of the Government, provide for the man.
ner of their establishment define their re-
spective powers some both affirmative
and negatively; define what power the
States yield to the general government
and what they reserve, including its pow
ers over the citizens of several States, the
relation of the States, and of the citizens
of the several States, to each other and
to the general government; how and by
whom the Constitution can be amended:
provide for the admission of new StateS
and specify the power of the government
over the territories and other property of
the United States.
Not a sentence contained in the original
articles. nor the first ten amendments
adopted nearly contemporaneously, more
clearly to specify the scope and limitation
of the powers named in the original aCti-
cles, indicates that these provisions are
applied to or bind anyone except the citi-
zens of the several States, who, through
their chosen representatives, framed and
adopted them and are given power to an
null and amend them Nor is there any
such sentence in the eleventh and twelfth
amendments. When the thirteenth
amendment was framed and adopted it
was therein clearly expressed that its pro-
visions should extend, not on.y to the
States then included in the Union, or
throughout the United States. but to any
place subject to their jurisdiction.
1t is significant that this clause should
be inserted into this amendment and tie
nowhere found in the original articles
nor in the preceding nor succeeding
amendments if of their own vigor they
extend wherever the United States exer-